TRANSPORT BILL

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 30, 4 August 1931, Page 6

TRANSPORT BILL

CITY COUNCIL VIEW

UNFAVOURABLE OPINIONS

POWEKS USURPED

Tho City Council last evening expressed strong opposition to certain proposals of the Transport Bill. Tho Mayor, Mr. ; T. C. A. Hislop, said .■that there had been a meeting-of the Emergency Committee of the Municipal Association and representatives of tho Auckland Transport and Christchurch Tramway Boards, and it was decided on behalf of tho Municipal Association to oppose the Bill. Tho view ho had taken was dictated solely by tho position of the tramways. The Wellington City Council had acted as licensing authority in tho Wellington district, and in that capacity had nsod its discretion with, duo regard to tho tramway services. In his four years of experience as a.member of the Bylaws Committee, which had carried out the work, the decisions had, in his opinion, been given fairly and justly, and often when tho balance was fairly even had given tho licence to the private company rathnr -than reserve it for the council to operate upon at a later date. The record of the council was that it had carried out its obligations under the 1926' Act properly and fairly. A GRAVE STEP. There was £1,300,000 involved in the Wellington tramway system, continued the Mayor, and it would be a very gravo step for the council to go from the present position to that proposed by tho Bill. Everything would leperid upon the'board: if an excellent board was set up all would be well, but there was no guaranteo of who the members would be nor how the board would regard municipal services. The Bill proposed also to give the board power to fix routes through towns, and stopping and parking places—an interference with the powers of municipalities. It "appeared. to him dangerous to change from a system 'which had been proved to be satisfactory in operation to something which would bo quite unknown. His view was that the powers of municipalities should remain as at present, the wider power sought being applied to country routes. COUNCILLORS AGREE. Councillor W. H. Bennett endorsed what the Mayor had said regarding the satisfactory manner in which the council, through the Bylaws Committee, had carried out its duties as tho licensing authority. It was quite clear from the Bill that the present powers of local bodies were going to be usurped, and he agreed that strong opposition should be made by the council. Councillor E. M'Keen said that the Bill had good points, but.it would unfavourably affect those local bodies which had their own transportation systems, and bring back tho chaotic conditions of 1925 and 1926. It appeared that the Minister would have very-wide powers indeed, even to granting an individual a licence to operate against tramways when the board itself had declined a permit. He would strongly opposo such proposals of the Bill, though a comprehensive Transport Bill was very necessary, provided that adequate protection was given to local body undertakings. Councillor B. Semplo spoke on similar lines, and said ho thought the council should register a public protest to the Minister and tho Prime Minis.tcr. LARGE BODIES NOT CONSIDERED. It was apparently another case of centralisation gone mad, said Councillor W. Appleton., It seemed that tho framers of the Bill did not • have tho big municipal authorities in mind at all. It was quite true that transport in the country generally was chaotic, but the Wellington City Council and others running tramway services . should be exempted from .the operations of the Bill. He was inclined to agree that a protest should be made. Everyone would agree that co-ordina-tion of transport was essential, said Councillor C. H. Chapman, but the position of the Government's railways with which service cars and buses competed, and the tram and bus services operated by local bodies wore entirely different. He considered that the local authority should continue as the licensing authority. It was left to the Mayor to arrange a deputation if one should prove helpful.