Integration Of Traffic Control Advocated

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30892, 27 October 1965, Page 3

Integration Of Traffic Control Advocated

{brom Our Parliamentary Reporter

WELLINGTON, October 26. The Minister of Transport (Mr McAlpine ) hit out at local body traffic departments in Parliament today. The House was giving the Transport Amendment Bill, the first of two such bills on the order paper, a second reading.

Advocating the establishment of national traffic control under the Transport Department, he said this would remove the dangers of using enforcement to recoup revenue for a local body —“always present when fines are paid into local coffers.”

The Minister quoted from the Invercargill City Council’s estimates of expenditure for 1965-66.

“As always the leading revenue producer in the traffic department was court fines and penalties which last year amounted to £7908. The figure for the previous year was £5209. Last year’s figure was £2508 higher than exnected,” said Mr McAlpine.

“This year, however, the [department hopes to collect lan estimated £9OOO in fines 'and nenalties.” he said.

“That." said Mr McAlpine, ■“is purely milking the public i for revenue and bears no relationship to traffic control." He said that in cases where the Transport Department took over control of a local authority organisation, fines imposed for breaches of city or borough by-laws would be paid to the city or borough. Fines imposed for offences committed under national transport law would be paid into the Consolidated Fund. “The Minister of Transport’s first concern is to treat public safety on all roads as top priority. This policy can be achieved nationally only by traffic staffs under unified control. “Hindered"’ “The present self-contain-ment of local authority services is now hindering this policy.” The Minister said this was especially so at holiday times when traffic quit the cities, leaving relatively empty city streets to be supervised by the local staff while Government officers attempted to cope with massive and risky volumes on the highwavs, often including local traffic officers on holiday. “It is estimated that with a re-deployed force under uniform control, savings of up to 10 per cent can be made in the cost of traffic control in New Zealand. Local authorities need have no fear a change on control would result in traffic officers in their areas having less knowledge of local conditions. The officers working for their traffic organisations would be retained in their area. “Apart from the question of road safety,” the Minister said, “two sections of Govern-] ment transport policy are slowly being converted into not much more than a dead ] letter in some areas by dependence on local control.”

“Unfortunately local body traffic officers have allowed

enforcement of heavy traffic fees almost to lapse in the last few years, to the detriment of the National Roads Fund. Moreover, they are leaving unenforced nearly the whole of goods carriage liI censing and the railways revenue protection law.” Mr McAlpine said the National Roads Board was to contribute 5 per cent of its revenue from heavy traffic fees to the Transport Department for enforcement services on its behalf. “Although no accurate figures are available it is estimated the department's services are worth at least £250,000 a vear and now that the board's funds are in a i healthv state, the Government I considers it reasonable that [ the board should make a con- ' tribution to this work. I “It will total £150.000 to i £lBO,OOO a year. The contribu- | tion will be made resardless |of whether local bodies take up the offer of free traffic coni f.rol services." Conditions Dealing with probationary drivers, the Minister said no probationary driver would be permitted to drive a rented vehicle, an ambulance, a school bus, or any vehicle carrying passengers for hire or reward.

He would not be able to teach any other person to drive and would have to display an “L” identification sticker or card on the vehicle while driving. Upon conviction for any accident-promotion offence or for a breach of probationarylicence restrictions such a driver would automatically be suspended from driving for three months. His probationperiod would be extended by a similar time.

The court could, at its discretion. order a period of longer disqualification, while a longer period would apply upon conviction for offences carrying a longer term of disqualification. A second or subsequent conviction for an accident promoting breach or a breach of probationary provisions would result in automatic disqualification for 12 months, and a further period of 12 months’ probation. Officers operating in unmarked patrol cars had been instructed, the Minister said, that where necessary they could ignore some breaches of traffic laws to concentrate

on accident promoting offences. “Unfortunately the introduction of these officers has not kept down the death rate! on the roads. But there has' not yet been time to evaluate ; their effectiveness and it I could be the rate would have! been higher were they not on the roads.” Mr J. Mathison (Opp..! Avon), a former Minister of: Transport, said that he | thought clauses four, 11 and 13 should be held over for; discussion during the! Parliamentary recess by the Road Safety Committee. He was glad clause nine was to be withdrawn. (Clause four authorises the making of regulations providing for the granting of probationary licences. Clause 11 is intended to restore the protection given to railways by a section of the principal act, which places restrictions on the carriage of goods. Clause 13 relates to hire of rental vehicles. Clause nine relates to the insurance of vehicles taking part in races.) Mr Mathison said that it was a pity that legislation should be passed and then amended. Clause 11 as originally ini the bill, Mr Mathison said. ' was incomprehensible. A ' legal and transport authority had said to him: “If you can understand clause 11, you are i a better man than anyone ini the transport industry. If! adopted, it will lead to a great deal of litigation." He appealed to the Govern ] ment to drop the clause and leave it for the recess committee to discuss. On clause 13, Mr Mathison said it would bring about a revolution in the car rental industry. Rental Firms

Dividing Device

“Why does the Government worry so much about an overseas take-over of a newspaper, and allow the car rental industry of New Zealand to be invaded by overseas firms?” he asked. Mr Mathison said the rental firm of Hertz was already established in New Zealand, and he understood that Avis, an even bigger international firm, would soon be here. Mr D. H, Carter (Govt., Raglan), who will be chairman of the recess committee, said the transport legislation had been divided in two because it seemed unlikely that a single big bill would have got through the select committee in time. The whole problem was urgent. Mr Mathison: Why not put them together now? Dr. A. M. Finlay (Opp., Waitakere) said that to plead urgency, and to talk about getting legislation on the books to save lives, was one way of speaking. “We spoke that way to try!

; to get the Government to do ■ something about tractor deaths.” he said. “But the] : | Government did not see it our ■ 'I way at all.

“I think this business of dividing the legislation into two is just a device to avoid' the whole bill being retortedj to the committee."

It was stated that regulations would be prepared as ] soon as the first Transport ' Bill became law, Dr. Finlay ■ said. “If regulations are to be] brought down, then let them be brought now before a, committee of this House, soi we can see them.”

Mr W. W. Freer (Opp.. Mt. Albert) said the average New Zealand driver was a competent, thoughtful motorist. “We should legislate only for the thoughtless minority. This has not been the tone of the debate so far. “We have to look not only at newcomers to driving but also at those who have been driving for years and are careless or ignorant of changes in driving and changes in the traffic laws.”

The bill was read a second time.