TRAMWAY BILL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 986, 29 November 1910, Page 6

TRAMWAY BILL.

MINISTERIAL V. MUNICIPAL CONTROL i I STRONG PROTESTS. \ KEEN DEBATE IN THE HOUSE- « ' ' The'motion for the committal of the j Tramways Bill was tho occasion of a i strong protest against tho measure in ' the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. j In moving the committal of tho Bill, 1 the Hon. R. M'Kenzie (Minister for 1 Public Works) said that in some respects j tho Wellington tramway system was as 1 bad as any in the Dominion. Overcrowd- J ing of cars was very common in Wei- 1 lington. He quoted a case in which a ' car, licensed -to carry forty-five persons, had left tho Athletic Park carrying 12b persons. Had the Mayor of Wellington been travelling on that car, tho' only , place he could have' been accommodated J would have been on the trolley pole. [ Mr. Wilford: You will be up the trol- • ley pole in a minute. j Mr. M'Kcnzio remarked that the Auck- j land trams also were pretty bad, and i the Mayor of Auckland had been fined j onco for refusing to leave a car. Clause 2 of the Bill provided that tramway , drivers should be licensed by tho Crown, ' and in the form in which it had passed : the Labour' Bills Committee, the Bill . should bo fairly acceptable to everybody. ■ Several instances of carelessness in tram- i way management were cited by Mr. 1 M'Kenzie, in support of his contention ; that tho Crown should have the power 1 of inspection. In Wellington Car 81 | had been run several times, with a loose 1 trolley head and defective brakes, and j although it was reported as defective by 1 four men, no action was taken. There 1 were hundreds of cases of this kind. 3 Auckland was pretty well known, but ; Auckland, ho thought, got a worse name • than it deserved. The .safest system was : Christchurch, and Auckland and Wellington tho least safe. A case had occurred in Auckland of a car braked up to twelve ■ tons, weighing eighteen tons. ; Anything over twelve tons was carried by these brakes at great risk. Cars : were run at much greater sseeds than they were supposed to be.' The Auckland City Council, which had authority to license trams, was afraid it was going to lose revenue by the transfer of controlling authority ,to tho Government, but he could assure the House the council would lose no revenue. Summing up the Bill, Mr. M'Kenzie expressed tho opinion that it was now as near perfection as one could get. Mr. Herdman's Views. Mr. A. L. Hcrdman (Wellington North) objected to tho Bill as being an attempt, to tako tramway control out of the hands of local bodies a'nd vest it in tho Government. Ho maintained that at least tho Dunedin, Christchurch, and Welling; ton systems were satisfactorily worked. There was no evidence that tho lives of citizens were endangered. Ono could givo instances of unsatisfactory management' by the Public Works Department. For instance, there was the drainage of Government House. The Public Works Department got into a hopeless muddle, and to whom did it apply?—to the Wellington City Council, if you please.^ Mr. M'Kenzie: What about the Wellington dock? Mr. Herdman maintained that tho people ' who ownod the tramways were quite to .be trusted to seo that the svstems were safe and satisfactory. Was there any demand for this Bill, and what wcro tho reasons for suggesting that tho Govermcnt should have. greater powers vested in it? There had been no .demand for it from any section of the public.. Ho was satisfied tho municipalities could, manage their own concerns much better, than tho Government could. Perhaps the Government had tho idea of ultimately taking over the tramways and controlling the employees for electioneering purposes. Mr. M'Kcnzio: No. Mr. Herdman urged in conclusion that the Bill was not fair to those, who had provided capital for tramway undertakings. The Bill actually over-rode tho Ordor-in-Council issued when the lines were laid. A City Councillor's Opinions. Mr. J. P. Luke (Wellington Suburbs) said he could have understood a Bill dealing specifically with the Auckland tramways, but he could not understand a general Bill. If all tho provisions of tho Bill were to bo complied with, fares would havo to bo raised. The local authorities were against tho proposal that the tramways should practically bo handed over to the Government. The Public Works Department might call upon tho Wellington Council to alter the palace typo of. car (which had'side entrances) to a type with central entrance. If this were done not only would the council bo put to a heavy expense, but the carrying capacity of the trams would be much reduced. Tho Minister had said a lot about tho overcrowding of tramcars, but what about the overcrowding of trains? Ho denied that tho Wellington system, in respect to tho .carriage of. passengers, was the worst in the Dominion. Mr. Wilford: That is tho Minister's form of wit! Mr. T. H. Davey (ChTistchnrch East) approved of tho proposed Appeal Boards for employees. Referring to the amendment of ' sub-clause (b) of clause 13, • Mr. Davey maintained that tho Minister could grant permission to a local authority to spend a large sum of money in constructing a new tramline without getting the sanction of tho ratepayers. Protest from the Mayor. Mr. T. M. Wilford (Hutt) maintained that the Bill was not a united Cabinet effort. In this Bill was given the right of appeal (with which he agreed), but in the railway servico the Minister insisted upon the right of veto. Mr. Wilford expressed tho opinion that ' the Bill ' was really caused by the proprietorship of the Auckland trams' by a private' company. This Bill ■ would not benefit the public, tho employees, or the municipalities. Tho Minister' knew as much about the running of tramways as ho did about the. fourth dimension of space. Tho Government had promised larger powers of local government. Was this one of its efforts in this direction? The Bill directly encouraged strikes. It gave the Government power to put great expense upon the municipalities. Tho Government might say that fifty cars were unsuitable, and the corporation would havo to build others. As Mayor of Wellington, he warned the people that the Bill would lower the wages of raotormen, and raise the fares on tho people. If tho condition obtainiug in Auckland in regard to overcrowding were enforced in Wellington, lie had no hesitation in saying that fares would have to be increased. Things were cut so fine that if the public were not content to suffer a little inconvenience at rush hours, the public would havo to find tho money for building extra trams. If the Bill were enforced a public clamour 1 would immediately arise. With the Bill tho public, would rend the Government. Ho did not think the majority of the tramway employees were of the same 1 mind as tho men who gavo evidence be- • fore tho Labour Bills Committee. The right of appeal was undeniable, but lie j did not think tho proposed court of ap- . peal would prove satisfactory. Tho Wellington City Council undertook careful 1 inquiry into appeals, and heard evidence 1 fairly and impartially. Tho Bill would ! override Orders-in-Council, which wero. \ security for large loans raised for tramway purposes. Further, the deeds of . delegation would bo nullified. Some Other Views, ' Mr. Poolo. (Auckland West) said that i people had been injured and killed as tho Tesult of inefficient appliances on some of tho car systems of tho Dominion. Wo • were, ho said, getting too mercenary alt together, when we considered our ability 'to finance an undertaking rather than to. , protect tho lives of the people who were . carrying on tho work. It would be ab- . solutely necessary to have uniform ofti--1 -cioncy in tho matter of qualified motor-. 3 men in Now Zealand. The Bill was not going to interfcro unnecessarily with local . administration. Mr. Wilford: It depends upon tho Min'listei.

Mr. Poole added that a shandygaff control by the Government was neither good for ono sido nor the other. An hon. member: Strike out the beer! Mr. Poolo complimented tho Minister for bringing in the Bill. Mr. M'Larou urged that the parties interested should bo directly represented on tho Appeal Board. He believed in the Appeal Board as provided in tho Bill. A good many members had been reading tho newspapers, and had got excited about tho matter. They had seen shadows and had dreamed dreams that were nover likely to como to pass. He, however, was opposed to some features of the Bill that wcro opposed to tho principles of local government. At the same time they did not require all the screaming that had been done from tho public N press. Mr. Fraser (Wakatipu) said the purpose of tho Bill was to take away from tho local bodies tho power which they at present had to deal with their own affairs. If they agreed to this it might be only a question of time before tho Government usurped tho functions of local bodies in regard to such matters as lighting and drainage. Ho thought local bodies should havo tho fullest powers, and should bo encouraged to work out their own salvation. Tho Hon. R. M'Kenzie Replies. Tho Hon. R. M'Kenzie said ho was pleased with tho reception of the Bill so tar. After the overhauling it got in the Committee he expected more criticism. Ho maintained that there had been a strong demand for the Bill. He denied that there was any attack on the security of the bondholders who had lent money for tho construction of tramways in New Zealand. As to interference with local bodies no municipality in this country could pass a single by-law without authority from the Government, and it was very necessary that such matters should be under the control of the State. As to tho men the object of examination was to improvo their status and qualifications. Why should men such as mOtormen who had lives so much under their control not havo a certificate of competency? He cited the cases of en-gine-drivers and the officers of the mercantile marine. Their status had been improved by the examinations they had to undergo. As to what had been said about Wellington the Government were not afraid of tho people of Wellington and were not going to run away from them, but if what did not suit, them was for the benefit of the country as a whole then the people of Wellington would have to suffer. At the same time he believed that a majority of the people of Wellington wore in favour of the Bill. As to increasing tho rolling stock ho did not want to interfere. All ho wanted was to see. that there were qualified men in charge of the trams and that the cars 1 themselves were run under safe conditions. He was not concerned about overcrowding so long as the brake power was sufficient and he did not propose to inter- ■ fere in any way. 1 The second reading was then agreed to. • The Bill in Committee. In Committee on the Bill, Mr. Wilford moved, amidst laughter, that tho Bill should only apply to the city of Auck- | land. Mr. Fisher (Wellington Central) said > Micro wero good and bad parts in the ; Billi Ho wished to see the good parts t kopt. He thought this was an ingenious ; attempt to kill the Bill. The amendment was lost on the voices. > ' The Minister, in reply to Mr. Fisher, 1 said no conference had been held in re- - gard to the Bill, and he had no inten- • tion .of dropping any of the clauses. f Mr. T. E. Taylor said that he heard 5 that a contract had been entered into , between the Minister and some of tho - members interested in the Bill. He believed there was' somo'.working arrange-,, - ment. Tho Minister %aid he was prepared to 3 take the Bill clause by clause, and take 3 a division on each. 3 Mr. Wilford' moved ' to alter the date s on which tho Act should como into t operation from January 1, 1911, to Janu--3 ary 1, 1912. s On a division, the amendment was Te--1 jected by 33 votes to 18. (Left Sitting.)