Transport Regulations

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 48, 19 November 1932, Page 13

Transport Regulations

Sir, —I have read with much interest your sub-leader in to-day’s issue of “The Dominion” calling,public attention to the threat to goods services by the proposed regulations issued by the Transport Department. I happen to be in a business which is indirectly concerned, and there is no doubt that such businesses are now having their eyes opened to the attempts of the Transport Department to legislate off the road any. rivals to the Railway Department. I have had the opportunity of studying the manifesto accompanying these draft regulations, and of hearing some of the comments throughout the country both on the subject matter and on the methods adopted by the Ministry of Transport. Firstly, it seems manifestly unfair that these regulations could possibly be considered by all interested parties, and their objections returned to the Minister by November 7 (which was the original date suggested), a matter of three weeks from the time when these were originally put out. Further, the regulations and the manifesto were by no means widespread, and if people did not happen to be in the “know?’ and apply for copies, they were left entirely in the dark on a matter which concerned them vitally. Many of the persons concerned are not in a large way of business, but they, should not be penalised on account of their shortcomings in that respect, which they undoubtedly would be if this date were insisted upon. •It was only by protests to the Minister that the date was extended, at least temporarily, to November 30, and it would appear that it must be extended still further if justice is done to everyone. , . One of the most remarkable points m this manifesto, however, is the impression, which would appear to be deliberately conveyed by the writer thereof, that the Salter Commission’s findings are actually in operation in England. Being curious, I have looked up the history of this commission’s findings, and have discovered that they have been the cause of tremendous opposition in England, which opposition is still raging, and they are most certainly not law. Inquiry in interested quarters gives me the information that the latest cabled advices from England state that if they ever do become law. it wiU most certainly not be in the form in which these findings were brought down, so it would appear that the Minister has entirely begged the question in relying on the Salter Commission’s findings as a preis still further evidence that the Minister, in issuing this manifesto, has attempted to rush the position. As I have just stated, he largely bases his case for the necessity and excellence of these pronosed regulations on the baiter Commission’s findings, which he states show he is on firm ground. Contrast this with the statement published in your paper under date November 9. and quoting the London “Times,” which states. — TChe Time, directs attention to the severe legislatn e provisions in New Zealand anfl Australia in connection with the competition of road and railway transport. Compared with these Draconian enactments. Britain, it ■;av= “seems to be one of the last countries to"wake up to the necessity of preventing destructive competition between road and M Surely if the London “Times” thinks fit to refer to our proposed legislation here as Draconian, and as being in advance of anything in England, the Minister must be very far astray in his premises. Hence, sir, I feel that you deserve the thanks of the community for drawing attention in your paper to this very real danger, and I feel quite certain that other views more directly interested than mine will be aired on the same subject.—l am, CfC " ■ NEW ZEALANDER. Wellington, November 15.