OTHER SPEAKERS

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 199, 20 May 1936, Page 12

OTHER SPEAKERS

Mr. R. A. Wright and Mr. J. Thorn Preference for control of transport by an independent board rather than by a Minister was expressed by Mr. R. A. Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs), who followed Mr. Coates in the debate. Mr. Wright contended it was a dangerous principle to allow a Minister of any Government to assume full and complete control of transport. He wished it to be understood that he was making no personal reflection on Mr. Semple or on the Labour Government. The Minister under the Bill was to be the final court of appeal. Mr. Semple: That is copying the English Act. Mr. Wright: I am not disputing that. Some of the English Acts 1 are good, some are bad, and some are indifferent. The fact that we are copying England is not necessarily a sufficiently sound argument. Mr. Semple: They have tried both. Mr. Wright said it was the principle he objected to. The Minister, for instance, might be called upon to decide a case in which the parties were his personal friends 1 . Mr. Semple: It wouldn’t worry me if it was my own brother. Mr. Wright: That would be the acid test. .Mr. .Semple: The influences that will prompt me will be those of the people and not of the individual. Mr. Wright said that the Minister would find himself in a very difficult position, particularly where both parties were in the right, which was not beyond the bounds of possibility. He was glad to note that hours 1 and conditions of the transport drivers were to be investigated. There were at present four systems of transport in New Zealand, which was too many for the comparatively small population. The choice was between competition and co-ordina-tion. If competition were allowed, the fittest would survive and ultimately a system best adapted to the needs of the people and providing good transport at moderate charges, would emerge. Mr. Wright said lie was not one of those who maintained that the railways should be scrapped. The system must be continued at all costs, as there was over £60,000,000 involved in it. He asked the Minister to explain later what he meant by co-ordination, and how he proposed to bring about coordination. If it was the intention of the Minister to see that tlie rail and road systems worked together as far as possible, then little fault would lie found. No injustice should be done to those who had invested their money in road services. Some splendid services had been built up, aud not one of them should be driven off the road without reasonable and adequate compensation.

"This Bill is the outcome of a conviction that the transport legislation passed since 1924 has dealt inadequately with a problem which lias been confused by irrational competition.” said Mr. J. Thorn (Government, Thames). The transport problem was one that, had taken all the previous Governments since 1924 unawares. It was significant that not until 1924 had legislation been thought desirable, aud hardly a session of Parliament had been held since that time without some additional legislation for the control of transport.

“Tlie Transport Co-ordination Board lias trow been swallowed up in oblivion,” Mr. Thorn continued. "It has departed this life unwept, unhonoured and unsung. Before that happy event took place transport was in a chatoic condition, aud where there is chaos there is sure to be a serious waste of resources and disservice to the public interests. The legislation passed since 1924 represented to a very considerable degree Governmental interference with the principle of free competition. Private enterprise was placed on the chopping block.’’

There had been unbridled competition in the transport business, with the inevitable result that the conditions in

tlie industry for the worker had become deplorable. Mr. Thorn continued. In 1934 the Co-ordination Board had expressed the opinion that it was not greatly impressed with the need for control of drivers’ hours, yet those long hours constituted a menace to the public safety. “The board is composed of two farmers and one lawyer,” said Mr. Thorn. Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Opposition. Kaipara): No. No. Two lawyers and one farmer. Mr. 11. Atmore (Independent. Nelson) : That is worse. “Anyway,” added Mr. Thorn. “I congratulate the Minister on sending such a fatuous body to the rightabout.” Mr. Thorn said the last Government delegated its authority to boards, allegedly to remove public services from political control, but proceeded to appoint its political friends to these boards, thereby destroying tlie force of its argument. It was humbug for the Opposition to charge the present Government witli creating a dictatorship, when the Transport Co-ordination Board was nothing more than a dictatorship of the worst kind. The board was an independent authority. The Minister had no right to attend its meetings or influence its decisions. “While the Transport Co-ordination Board had such absolute powers, the Minister and tlie Government had to bear tlie brunt of its decisions,” said Mr. Thorn. "The public bad no confidence in tlie board, tlie Railways Department certainly had no confidence in it, Hie Transport Department had no confidence in its decisions, and I question if the last Minister of Transport had any confidence in it. If he had then why did he refuse to act on two questions he referred to the board for its recommendations?”

The debate was interrupted on the motion of Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Opposition. Waitomo), and the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.