BUS REGULATIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 25, 29 July 1926, Page 15

BUS REGULATIONS

MORE EVIDENCE HEARD,

The Select Committee of the House of Bepresentatives set up to consider the petitions presented to Parliament in opposition to the motor omnibus regulation continued its sittings yesterday afternoon. Alexander H. Johnstone, acting City Solicitor at Auckland, said that regulations for the control of traffic were urgently1 required. Eegulations to protect public enterprises were at present in force in England, the United States, and Australia, at least. The New Zealand regulations as they were originally drafted were on the whole suitable for conditions as they existed in Auckland. There were weaknesses in one or two respects, notably in that they were rather cumbersome so far as enforcement was concerned, and that no provision was made for the cost of administration. Buses competing along the direct tram routes were depleting the revenue of the tramway department. Many of the Auckland bus proprietors had expressed approval of tho regulations, and the opposition was mainly confined to two of the larger companies, representatives of which had given evidence before the Committee. „. Concluding his evidence, Mr. #>hnstone defended the constitution of the Appeal Board as provided for undA the regulations. The Chairman (Mr. E. P. Leo): "Would you object to the substitution of tho Supreme Court for the Appoal Board?" Mr. Johnstone: "Of course, I could not object, but appeals aro necessarily on matters of fact." The witness said that it would bo more satisfactory if the regulations were validated by statute. He would like to see some statutory action taken, in order to prevent endless litigation. The Committee adjourned until this morning.