Case To Be Heard, Says Authority

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31151, 30 August 1966, Page 18

Case To Be Heard, Says Authority

After hearing submissions that an application for an amendment to a continuous goods service licence should be dismissed, the No. 9 Transport Licensing Authority (Mr J. S. Heywood) yesterday ruled that a prima facie case had been established and the objectors’ evidence should be heard. The case was in its fourth day.

Since last Wednesday, about 16 witnesses have given evidence in support of the application, which has been lodged by E. H. Boyce and Company, Ltd., of Christchurch, for an amendment to a continuous goods service licence by the addition of 12 vehicle authorities.

The company is also seeking exemption from rail restriction. It wants to extend its vehicle transporter service in the South Island. The application is being opposed by the Railways Department (Mr F. D. Daly), Transport (Nelson), Ltd. (Mr G. S. Brockett), and Mr R. Stacey is appearing for McLennan’s Transport, Blenheim. Car Haulaways (N.Z.) Ltd., Auckland and Wellington, has been granted observer status.

Submitting that the case should be dismissed, Mr Daly said there had been no evidence of public interest and all the applicant company had done was to put the Railways on trial.

Mr Daly said the department had been strongly criticised with evidence gained by “snooping.” If the Railways was to be put on trial, before a tribunal was not the place.

He said that adverse reviews of all the goods services in Christchurch could be prepared. The Railways had no case to answer. EMPTY DECKS

Recommending that the application be dismissed, Mr Stacey said that transport in the South Island was difficult. “The economics of providing an effective transporter service are frightening.” Mr Stacey said the applicant company’s ambitions had been heightened by the attractive notion that interisland roll-on ferries would become a road across the sea. He drew attention tc a newspaper article which said that inter-island ferries had been sailing recently with car decks virtually empty. Mr Stacey said that the scope of the application had been reduced to dealing with towns and cities south of Christchurch. To transport cars to the West Coast showed a pioneering spirit which was impractical. Appearing for the applicant company, Mr H. W. Hunter said an attack on the Railways Department had to be made. Evidence had proven that rail cartage of motorvehicles caused unnecessary damage and delay, was unsuitable and the cost was not competitive. Mr Hunter said that at least five witnesses had indicated that they would use a trans-

porter service if it became available. Therefore, the case for public demand had been established. ARAMOANA DISPUTE

He said that the position of his client company had been affected by the Aramoana dispute—which was prohibiting the transit of trade vehicles across Cook Strait It was reasonable to assume that wise counsels would prevail and the dispute —“a national disgrace”— would soon end. Mr Hunter said the case had been presented on accepted principles of licensed transport and the objectors had a case to answer.

In a protest submission, Mr Hunter said that Car Haulaways (N.Z., Ltd.), Auckland and Wellington, had been taking advantage of its observer status as a guise for its own ends. Mr Hunter also criticised the lengthy cross-examina-tions made by Mr Stacey. The Authority said, when ruling that a prima facie case had been established, that the application was a wide one. Although it was the company's third attempt to get the amendment it sought, the evidence had shown many developments—in particular, the cartage of second-hand cars.

The only similar amendment, granted to Car Haulaways (N.Z., Ltd.), Auckland and Wellington, was for the transit of new cars, the Authority said.