BUS REGULATIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 154, 30 June 1926, Page 3

BUS REGULATIONS

"GOVERNMENT'S POSITION

DIFFICULT."

Speaking of the bus regulations in the House of Representatives yesterday, the Leader of the National Party (Mr. G. W. Forb*3) said that these had met with a good deal of opposition. Parliament had to be very careful about the principle it adopted to prevent competition with trams. If buses were more efficient than trams, so far as transport was concerned, then the tramway systems should not be bolstered up by the Government in the' manner to which objection was being taken. The twopence excess fare was a very clumsy proposal tq adopt. if Moreover, they should recollect the old principle that competition was the life of trade. The Hon. A. D. M'Leod urged members to sit down and give a few hours' close attention to the bus regulations, and not take heed of what a section of the community or the Press said on the matter. If they did that, they would agree that the Government's position was very difficult, and that the question had to be tackled one way or another. Twelve bus proprietors in Wellington and adjoining districts are petitioning Parliament for a resolution of disapproval of the ;bus regulations. The petition states that there are seventy buses in Wellington to the total value of approximately £90,000, and that by the operation of the regulations their owners will be either seriously prejudiced or unable to carry on, which will mean a total loss of capital. I£ is stated that the regulations are unfair and prohibitive for the reason that the full control of the manner in which the bus proprietor shall carry on business is conferred on the Wellington City Council, and that there is an excess fare which does not apply to the buses owned by the Corporation which are running in opposition to the private buses and in opposition to the council's tramcars. It is also claimed that the insurance of the buses has been raised to a larger amount than can be conceivably claimed. As an example, it is \. stated that an owner of ten buses, each accommodating 30 passengers, must insure against accident for £150,000. It is inconceivable, contended the petitioners, that the ten vehicles should be involved in the one accident, and 300 passengers thereby injured. A further ground of protest relates to the representation on the Appeal Board, of whose five members only one is representative of the bus owners. The petition says the owners will suffer huge losses, imposed not by an Act of Parliament, but by Order-in-Council promulgated by the Executive Council.