TRANSPORT CONTROL

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 204, 26 May 1936, Page 8

TRANSPORT CONTROL

Before the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill is finally disposed of by the House of Representatives, the Minister of Transport ought to be asked to give chapter and verse for his authority in stating that in respect of the powers vested in him by this new measure the Government is simply copying the English Act. lhe British Road Traffic Act of 1930 constituted the Minister of Transport as tlie court of appeal from the decisions of licensing authorities, but he is not the final court, and several of his divisions have been reversed on further appeal to the law courts. 1 had is where Mr. Semple’s ideas and the British Government s differ. Ihe British Road and Rail Goods Traffic Act of 1933 provided in respect of licenses an appeal tribunal, including a chairman of legal experience, “to determine appeals in connection with the grant or refusal of licenses.” This tribunal was duly constituted, with a K.C. as its chairman. Furthermore, there was set up a Transport Advisory Council, of representatives of local authorities, coastwise shipping, railway transport, both mechanical and horse-drawn road traffic, canals, pedestrians and other road users not otherwise specified, harbours and docks and labour, to advise the Minister upon various aspects of the general problem of transport. On a comparison of these various provisions with the extensive authority proposed to be vested in the New Zealand Minister of Transport it becomes a little difficult to find points of resemblance. In one of the cases on appeal to the c o urt from a decision of the British Minister of Transport the appellant comnlained that no reasons had been given by the licensing authority, or the Minister, for the refusal of a license. Mr. Semple, in reply to a question in the House last week, undertook to see that provision was made for reasons to be given. Now, if a reason given bv a licensing authority; and endorsed by the Minister, is arguable, as well it may be, what recourse is there for anyone who may feel that an injustice has been done? Under this Bill there is no appea. from the Minister’s decision; under the English law there is. Mr.-Semple surely does not claim that his judgment is infallible. There is 110 such thing as human infallibility, and the tendency to error is likely to be greater when he who gives a decision fee.s secure from overriding judgment. Even a court of justice may err. but with its training and experience in the weighing of evidence, and in the examination of a case from all points of view, a judicial tribunal’s liability to error is greatly diminished. The position of the Minister of Transport under the present Bill will be one of great responsibility, but his powers are so constituted that he. or a successoi in the office, mav be tempted to use them in an irresponsible way lhe public interest demands that he should provide either a tribunal to deal with appeals from decisions of licensing authorities, or procedure for recourse to a court of justice for appeals from his own decisions.