OMNIBUS TRAFFIC

Evening Star, Issue 19614, 21 July 1927, Page 4

OMNIBUS TRAFFIC

MR WILFRED'S BILL SECOND READING LOST [Peb United Puess Association.] WELLINGTON, July 20. When tho House of Representatives sat at 7.30 p.m., Mr T. M. Wilfprd (Hutt) moved tho second reading of tho Motor Omnibus Traffic Amendment Bill, which sought to repeal tho clauses in tho Act of last year, giving the right of appeal from the decision of tho licensing authority as to the sufficiency of any existing or proposed facilites for tho transport of passengers or the granting or refusal of a license. In tho case ho had ip mind in tho Wellingtou-Hutt district, that of Ingham, who started in opposition to tho existing bus services and the railway, ho obtained the approval of the local municipal authorities, and applied lor a license, which tho Wellington City Council granted. Then other bus proprietors appealed against the granting of tho license. They claimed that so long as they were prepared to put on the buses necessary to cope with tho traffic, offering, then no other person should he given a license The Appeal Board was made up of two representatives of the local hodio.v favorable to Ingham, one representative of the bus owners, and ono of the Public Works Department, which included the railways. The two latter represented interests that were certainly adverse to Ingham. Thus, the decision was left to a judge of the Supreme Court who was chairman of tho Appeal Board, mid set his opinion against that of the export representatives of the local bodies and tho licensing authorities, who knew all the details of the traffic in the district. All ha (Mr Wilford) asked in this Bill was that tbo licensing authorities’ finding in such a- case should bo final, and not subject to appeal. Mr A. Harris (Waitcmata) said Mr Wilford’s contention was good as it applied to local conditions, but it must bo remembered that this legislation was of a. national character He considered it unwise to abolish tho light of appeal from the decision of the licensing authority so long as it included a tramway owner on existing bus owner, who naturally was antagonistic to licensing a new competitor. What was needed was an amendment of the licensing authority’s constitution, so that it should bo a quite independent body in order that tho local body _ financially interested in transport services should not have flic right arbitrarily to debar an opposition service starting. _ Ho would .support the second reading of the Bill, hoping later to secure an amendment of the constitution of the licensing authority. * Mr E. P. Lee (Oamarn) suggested that instead of abolishing the right of appeal it might be restricted to cases in which licenses were refused. Mr W. J. Savage (Auckland West! thought that tho transport legislation started out on the wrong liue ; and it was no use tinkering with it. The only thing was either to give it a further trial or recast tho whole legislation. Mr Savage said the whole of tho people were interested in transport facilities, and they should have direct representation on the licensing authority. Mr W. A. Ye itch (Wanganui) said ho thought the Bill was_ designed to remedy some of tho'injustices perpetrated by the Act of last session, but instead of abolishing tho right of appeal tho House should endeavor to improve the method of appeal. Mr V. H. Potter (Roskill) said the speech of the member for Hutt, in moving the second'reading of the Bill, had proved conclusively tho necessity of an anneal board. He suggested that all difficulties would be obviated if they had an independent transport controlling authority, such as tho Christchurch Tramway Board. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central) said the decision of the Appeal Board in the Potnne case had caused great dissatisfaction, but the remedy proposed would not bo applicable in other centres.

After the supper adjournment tho debate was carried on by Messrs H. G. R. Mason' (Eden), G- W.Forbes _(Hnrunui). R. M'Kcan (Wellington South), H. T. A mstrong (Christchurch East), J, A. Leo (Auckland East), H, E. Holland (Bullcr), and F. R. Bartram (Grey Lynn). At 0.35 a.m. Dir Wilford. having replied, a division was called for on tho second reading, which was lost by 39 votes to 15.