TRANSPORT BILL

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 208, 30 May 1936, Page 12

TRANSPORT BILL

Passed By Legislative Council TWO AMENDMENTS DEFEATED “Slowing Progress Down To Rail Standard” The Transport Licensing Amendment Bill was put through the concluding stages in the Legislative Council yesterday. Two amendments, apart from alterations made by the Government itself, were put forward, but they were roundly defeated. Whati protest was heard centred ; n the fear of the socialisation of the means of transport, and the wisdom of the Minister of Transport in taking powers as the final court of appeal against the decisions of a licensing authority. The Hon. R. Hayward (Christchurch). who resumed the second reading debate, said the obvious intention of'the Bill was to safeguard the railways at the expense of motor traffic. The railways were operating on a system of rather more than 3000 miles, as against 50.000 miles of roads; in other words, they covered only 7 per cent, of the traffic routes of the country. Referring to motor accidents, Mr. Hayward advocated sterner penalties for offenders against the regulations. A tribute to the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates for his early work in attacking the tremendous problem of transport was paid by the Hon. C. J. Carrington (Auckland), who described him as the pioneer of motor traffic regulations designed to bring order out of chaos. Credit should be given where lt> was due. He supported the Bill, because he felt that there was a very big job J still to be done in the co-ordination of transport. Dangerous Motor-cycles. Motor-cycles contributed more to the 101 l of week-end accidents than any other form of transport, said the Hon. E. R. Davis (Auckland), who urged more stringent control. The age when young people could obtain driving licenses should be raised. In England one person in 6000 was killed on the highways, while in New Zealand lhe proportion was one in 5200. Moro at>tentiou should also be given to the elimination of dangerous level crossings. The opinion that the existing traffic regulations if enforced were sufficient to effect a substantial reduction In road accidents was expressed by the J lon. J. Alexander (Auckland). He described the measure as one designed for file socialisation of transport and the elimination of private motor competition against lhe railways. "It appears that the economic progress of ibis country must be slowed down to lhe railway standard,” said Mr. Alexander, who asked what would be the positiou if t.he .State owned a line of sailing ships and adhered to it when modern motor-vessels were competing. He criticised the clause giving the Minister of Transport authority as the final court of appeal and making him in effect the judge in his own cause. Minister in Reply. Replying to the debate the Hou. M. Eagan said the Minister of Transport would handle 3000 goods services and 1700 passenger services in New Zealand, whereas in Britain there were 48,000 services under the control of the Minister of Transport. Answering the charge that the Bill would make for the complete socialisation of transport, Mr. Fagan said there was very little left to socialise. Previous Governments had done the job so well. Ho cited figures showing the estimated ownership of capital invested in all forms of transport as at March 31, 1935, excluding private cars and private trucks. The ownership was as follows:—Shipping and harbours. public, £18.85 millions, private, £2 millions: railways, public, £59.5 millions, private none; roads and motor transport, public £78.51 millions, private £5.46 millions; electric tramways, public. £5.5 millions, private, none: air transport, public £.3 millions, private. £.2 millions. The striking conclusion was that just over 06 per cent, of all the transport of the Dominion, apart from private motor-cars anti private Irurlts. was publicly owned by the general Government or loitil aiilhoriI les. Mr. Fagan said that road operators had nothing whatever to fear from the

Government's legislation. A conference of such operators had been held with the Government and they had gone away well satisfied. Amendments Agreed io. The Council, in committee, agreed to amendments to three clauses on the motion of Mr, Fagan. The object of these was to make it clear that a licensing authority must record the reasons for its decisions, that a certified copy of decisions and reasons was to be available on request to any member of tlie public, that all verbal evidence must be taken on oath, and that the licensing authorities must send to the Minister of Transport a copy of the notes of evidence taken before (lie authority in respect of any appeal. Tlie Hon. K. Masters (Taranaki) moved an amendment to the clause re fitting to appeals to the Minister from decisions of licensing authorities, his object being the substitution of the word “minister” by “magistrate.” Mr. Masters said the public would have more confidence in a magistrate as the final court of appeal than a Minister, because the Crown was interested in transport itself. He meant no reference to the present Minister bill was concerned with tlie principle. Mr. Fagan said the Goverunien 1 could not accept the amendment. On a division it was defeated by 1S votes to nine. The voting was as follows: — For tin; amendment (!>): Allen McLeod Buddo Masters Davis Rhodes Hayward Waite Isitt Against (18): Fagan Lark Briggs McCullough Brindle Mclntyre Connelly Mawhete Cotter O'Byrne Doyle Robbins Dye Snodgrass Goodall Statham Hunter Trevethick Aii amendment to the provisions protectinft the railways where they carried on Or acquired passenger services was moved by the Hon. J. McLeod (Taranaki) who sought the deletion of words qualifying the renewal of a license ami thereby restricting the extension of its terms. This was defeated on the voices. The Bill was read a third time and 1 passed.