STALEMATE

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 117, 11 February 1926, Page 8

STALEMATE

MOTOR BUS REGULATIONS PRIVATE INTERESTS v. PUBLIC UTILITY NO SETTLEMENT REACHED The by the Government to ' consider the draft regulations recently framed for the control of omnibuses was resumed at Parliament Buildings yesterday morning, but proved abortive, as the committee appointed on Tuesday had been unable to reconcile the contending interests of the bus proprietors and the municipal tramways. The Prime Minister (Right Hon. J. G. Coates), before the conference broke up, intimated that the evidence which had been tendered would be helpful in assisting the Government to frame regulations which would conserve as far as possible the interests of all parties.

When the conference resumed yesterday morning the committee reported that they had been unable to meet on common ground. The chairman (Mr. F. W. Furkert, Under-Secretary for Public Works), stated that he was sorry there .was very little to report from the committee. Mr. Hammond had moved that the licensing board should be a tribunal consisting of an independent chairman appointed by the Government, a representative representing the local bodies not owning tramways, and a member representing the owners of private motor-buses. This had been defeated by ten votes to four, and a motion carried endorsing the regulations framed by the Government. “From what I gathered at the meeting of the committee,” said Mr. Furkert, “it seemed that the motor-bus proprietors were prepared to swallow the regulations, with the exception of the clause making it compulsory for buses to charge more than trains .when running along tram routes.” Licensing Authority question. “Neither can wo swallow clause 7," i said Mr. W. G. McDonald (Wellington omnibus proprietors), "which makes the local body the licensing authority.” He explained that bis company had been refused permission to use Ghuznee Street, yet two months later the City Council gave-its tramway concern permission to use that street. How, then, could they accept the local authority as the licensing body? The appeal board was nothing more than the carrot in front of the donkey’s nose. It i was a camouflage to give the private bus owners something which was really ■ nothing at all. If the Government, as framer of the regulations, 1 was, going to insist upon buses charging more > than the trains, bus owners would have , to rnn at fares that the public could i not be expected to pay. , The Prime Minister: Will you state your actual position ? I Mr. McDonald said his company had 14 buses, and about £14,000 involved. i They made no attempt to go into Lambton Quay, Willis Street, or Manners ■ Street, but they ran along tram routes. “Wo made a success of it,” he said, "and catered for the working class. 1 It would be utterly unfair to compel us to charge more than the trains. We ran from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. each day, and did not attempt to pick the cream of the traffic. We have had an experience of the licensing authority refusing us a license to run along a route, and then putting their own buses.on the run. If we were allowed to run for five years we would be able to get our rnon'ey back. I would be prepared to go out of the business in five years.” The Prime Minister: Suppose we give you two years ? Mr. McDonald: That would be better than nothing, on the lines that half a loaf is bettor than no bread. Threat or Prophesy? "If you," as head of the Government," said Mr. McDonald, "are going to bow to a panic agitation got up by the tramways, which has nothing to justify it, it will be most unjust. Nowhere have the buses hurt tramways. Auckland and Wellington showed profits last year. If the tramway authorities engineer you into the position of having to say to. the bus proprietors that thej' must put up their fares, the whole onus will be upon you, and not on the tramway authorities. ' . The Prime Minister: Is that in the nature of a threat? Mr. .McDonald: No; it is in tho nature of a prophecy. (Laughter.) Denial.by City Council. Mr. J. O’Shea (city solicitor, Wellington) denied that the Wellington City Council had authorised its • 'buses to run in Ghuznee Street. It would be breaking its own by-laws to do so. He stated that a suburban resident had taken a concession ticket from a bus company which had since gone out of business, and the purchaser had applied to the City Council for relief. Mr. Gardiner (Auckland) asked if the people who had invested money in homes in districts served by motor-buses were not entitled to some protection. The Last Round. Tho Prime Minister called upon Mr. J. F. Cousins (New Zealand Motor

Trades’ Association). “These are the gentlemen,” said Mr. Coates, "who would not speak yesterday." Mr. Cousins: “It is the last round which counts." lie said that the regulations should not be made too drastic or too binding. If at the outset of the conference it could have been proved Hint the licensing tribunal would be an absolutely impartial tribunal the proceedings would havo been made much easier. He suggested that an independent motor transport board should lie given power to deni with all local matters. The motor traders had every confidence in the Government as at present constituted and the heads of the Departments, and were confident that the Government would frame fair and equitable regulations. Mr. F. J. Nathan (Palmerston North) said it was the duty of the bus proprietors to know the regulations which controlled motor-buses in other parts of (he world, and to realise that similar regu’ations must be introduced in the Dominion. To put on more trams whore transport was already provided was economic waste. Must Look to the Future. .Mr. E. IT. Potter (representing the small local bodies in Auckland) said they had a sporting community in Auckland, and they hart to get to the racecourse. Furthermore., in the interests of public health the community was spreading into the ,country. They had to look to the future. It was necessary to consider an area even outside that which -was at present settled. He asked that the present licensing authority in Auckland be retained. The amount of money invested in tramways was small compared with tho mi'lions invested by the. 150.009 people who had bought homes in the outlying suburbs of' Auckland. The small boroughs would like to have representation on the licensing board. Protest from Takapuna. Sir. Edwin Mitchelson (chair of directors of the Takapuna .Tramway Company) said the Takapuna tramways started running in 1910 and had been the means of largely increasing the population. The borough, had recently laid down a concrete road, with the result that motor-buses ran on this road and picked up the cream of the tramway traffic. These motor-buses wore not licensed, and he considered that it was unfair that such private buses shou'd cut into the tramway traffic, lie supported the framing of the regulations. Motor-buses had come to stay, but they should not be allowed to pir ato tramway traffic. The problem was difficult to solve, but he felt sure they could safely leave the Government to do the fair thing in the framing of regulations which would study al) interests. Mr. Gt Campbell (Auckland Omnibus Proprietors) said that if the regulations as at present framed came info force, the motor bus proprietors would have to increase the fares to the workers living in outlying districts. . . Stable Transport Wanted. Mr. Bloodworth (Auckland) stated that the bus proprietors had admitted that if they were not permitted .to pick up passengers along the train, routes they could not carry passengers beyond the tram termini without increasing the fares. That proved that the workers were residing in (he areas served by the trains. Skilled workers wanted not only cheap transit but assured transit. The public had no guarantee that the bus services would be maintained. The bus proprietors were not in the business for amusement, and their, profits were dependent upon economic.' conditions overseas.

Mr. Campbell: The price of petrol has gone dewn. Continuing, Mr. Bloodworth said the object of tram services was to spread the population over a wide area. The farthest out sections never paid, and probably never would pay. If ' they scrapped the trams, they would also scran the electric light .services. This would mean that money would go overseas for petrol, and give employment to workers outside .the Dominion. The. bus proprietors’... argmnent—that- they were the friends of the workers would not hold water. He claimed that members of local bodies, who wore e'ected every two years, were much more likely to be impartial than a board who were nominated. Mr. McDonald: I would like to ask Mr. Bloodworth if a borough council which was elected to socialise all the means of transport: within the city could bo considered: an impartial both’? Mr. Gardiner (Auckland) said the city council only represented two-fifths of tho community. “Washing Auckland Linen.” Mr. C. B. Algar (Christchurch) said it appeared as if they' were washing a good deal of linen between Auckland and the outlying suburbs. They appeared to be getting nowhere, and he suggested that the Prime Minister should close the conference down and let them go home. Mr. Thompson (chairman of thq Tramways Committee of the Auckland City Council) said that if the bus propriotors would promise not to pick up passengers along the tram routes, the Auckland tramways would be prepared to cut out the proviso that buses must charge 2d. moro than trams on tram routes. Tramway Interests Too Autocratic. Mr. B. L. Hammond said the bus proprietors had come to the conference hen. estlv prepared to meet the other side in a spirit of compromise, but the tramway interests had sat firm for the local body being the licensing authority. Tho attitude of the tramway representatives had been autocratic. They had sat firm behind the Government regulations. They had at least the satisfaction that the tramway interests had at last come out into the open, and shown that they were out to kill competition. He thanked the Prime Minister for the fair and impartial manner in which lie had conducted the conference. They iv'ere also grateful to those representatives of local bodies who had put in a word for fair play. To the tramway interests he would say he hoped the time would come when they would not take so much interest in their own affairs that they were absolutely blind to the interests of others. , Sir Edwin Mitchelson referred to the electrification of railways, and hoped that the interests of the Takapuna Tramway Company would be protected. Government’s Intentions. The Prime Minister said the Government wanted to get all points of view and to learn what effect the regulations would have upon the different interests. The Government wished to be fair, and did not desire to . ride rough-shod over people who had invested money hi various enterprises. After hearing the views of the different interests he thought they would, be able to frame regulations which would be fair to all. It was bf great importance that transport should move along the lines of an enlightened community. He trusted that when the regulations camo out they would be found to be fair, though they might not please everybody. . Ho thought that the motor-bus proprietors would find that they would be fairly treated. He thanked them for attending the conference and giving so much helpful advice on a most important subject. “We are going to do what wo consider is our duty to the public,” was the Prime Minister’s final word, "and what is best for the proper control of transportation.” Tributes to Prime Minister. Hon. J. Barr, Sir Edwin Mitchelson, and Mr. B. L. Hammond all paid tributes to the fair and impartial manner in which the Prime Minister had presided over the conference. It had, they declared, been no fault of Mr. Contes that the contending interests, could not bo reconciled.