MOTOR TRANSPORT

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 302, 21 September 1928, Page 9

MOTOR TRANSPORT

ALLEGED GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE TRADERS PROTEST By Telegraph.—Press Association. Nelson, September 19. Government ami municipal interference in motor transport was discussed at the New Zealand Motor Traders’. Conference to-day'. Tlie subject was introduced by Mr. Duncan F. Bauchop (Wellington). He referred to a deputation to the Prime Minister, which stated that private enterprise did not object to Government competition provided it was on an equal basis. It was pointed out that the Government motor undertakings paid no rates and no taxes (especially income tax) ; they allowed for no depreciation and published no balance-sheets to show their financial position. Frequent losses on these undertakings were hidden in the public accounts, so that they could not be identified. If the Government meet these objections, then private enterprise would have no objection to the competition. The speaker went on to refer to various private business interests that had recently protested against Government interference and competition. “The Nineteen Twenty-eight Committee,” said Mr. Bauchop, was a nonpolitical organisation which laid its grievances before the Government on this and similar matters. The main thing they were up against, he said, .was that the Prime Minister was also Minister of Railways. The railways were his child and he had to justify, their position. The Prime Minister did that by methods which the motor interests did not altogether agree with, and which jeopardised the chances of legitimate private enterprise. There should he no common catch phrase, “Road. v. Rail”; it should be “Road and Rail.” The motor interests felt the railways had a very useful sphere of operation, but lines should not be built in non-paying districts where good roads would be of much greater value. Road and rail transport each had its own functions, and they should work together and not in conflict. The position in other countries showed that in the future road transport was going to be a big brother of the railways. The public were called upon to bear losses on the railways, but if they showed, as they unmistakably did, they wanted motor transport as well, then they should be allowed to have what they were obviously prepared to pay for. The motor interests felt that the setting up of a transport board would solve their difficulties. The board should be composed of representatives of all bodies that handled the question of transport. Mr.. Bauchop then moved the following motion: “This conference, embracing practically the whole of the wholesale and retail motor trade interests of the Dominion, records its protest against unjust Government and municipal competition in motor transport on the following grounds (a) That the present motor transport has' evolved as a result of public demand and could not persist if it did not fill a definite public need; (b) tha.t private enterprise has every right to institute and maintain a transport service irrespective of the fact that such service. may actively compete with existing services, Government. municipal or private; (c) that the fact that large sums of public money .are invested in Government and municipal transport systems is no satisfactory reason why private enterprise should be discouraged or penalised, as real progress is based upon economic laws and can never be permanently repressed by non-econ-omic restrictions; (d) that any Government or municipal trading ventures should be amenable to the same laws and taxation as private businesses and responsible for the production of trading and profit and loss accounts; that the Government be requested to. appoint an independent board to investigate transport problems embracing all Dominion roads and rail traffic and bring down a report as early as possible; (f) that this conference approves of and supports the policy and activities of the ‘1928 Committee.’ ” The motion was seconded by Mr. Ij. A. Edwards (Wellington). Governments, he said, did not listen to reason but to votes, and when the present Government realised that delegates from nil parts of New Zealand had passed this resolution then they would take notice. The object of the resolution was to deal with the matters from the political aspect. As an example of what was going on under the surface, the speaker said that if a motor service was inaugurated that was likely to affect a railway or tramway service then Government or municipal machinery was set to work to prevent that service from paying. The promoters of the service were approached and told that if they did not stop a tariff war would be begun, and they would be run off the road. This was bureaucratic control of the worst sort. New Zealand was supposed to be the home of liberty, but there was not as much liberty as was generally supposed. A pernicious system of Government by Order-in-Council brought in legislation overnight which nobody knew anything about. It was time for the motor interests to protest against Government and municipal interference with their liberties. The remit was supported by Mr. Ashton, president of the Motor Trade Association. and Mr. E. Reynolds, president of the Wholesalers’ Association, and was passed unanimously. The next annual conference is to be held at Palmerston North.