“TRAGIC FARCE”

Evening Star, Issue 25745, 19 March 1946, Page 7

“TRAGIC FARCE”

TRANSPORT APPEAL PROCEDURE LICENSING AUTHORITY HITS OUT CAUSTIC COMMENT (P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, March 18. “ A tragic farce,” was one term used by the No. 3 Transport Licensing Authority, Mr T. H. Langford, to-day, when he made an outspoken attack on the procedure followed in appeals against the decisions of the transport licensing authorities. Contending that appeals should be heard under the same conditions as ruled in the courts of justice, Mr Langford declared: “ I am going to do more than sit in a chair in the office of the Commissioner of Transport or write letters.- The whole system is not in accordance with British justice.” Mr Langford said that an officer of the Transport Department in Wellington had telephoned an officer of the department in Christchurch asking whether there was anything sinister in one of the authority’s decisions. This was described by Mr Langford as an “ insidious, rotten, and libellous suggestion.” (Mr Langford launched his attack at the sitting of the No. 3 Authority today, when an application by C. L. Rhodes came before him. The applicant sought a new rental car license, with authority to operate 10 rental cars. Remarking that the application had been brought forward again soon after an adverse appeal decision, Mr Langford said that he had fresh evidence as the result of reports by an investigating officer, and he. also wished to make some comment on the transport appeal system in New Zealand. PROTESTS UNAVAILING. “ From time to time licensing authorities have protested against the methods adopted, but with little lasting effect,” he said. At the tinle when Mr Semple was Minister he had, _ at the request of licensing authorities, instructed the Commissioner of Transport (Mr G. A. Laurenson) that nobody associated with an appeal should lie allowed to make a direct approach to the headquarters of the Transport Department, but that was not the position to-day. The present procedure was that appeal decisions were prepared by officers of the Transport Department and referred to the Appeal Authority (Sir Francis Frazer) for his acceptance or otherwise. The Appeal Authority had to be guided by the opinions of these officers of the department—-“ and they are nearly always wrong.” Mr Langford declared: “It is as lop-sided as anyone can possibly imagine. We have been nearly 10 years messing about with it, and I, for one, am not waiting any longer.” Mr Langford quoted ah instance of an appeal against the decision of a metropolitan authority. The appeal was upheld, but the authority stuck to its guns. Another appeal was. made, and Mr Justice Frazer wisely decided upon a public hearing, which, Mr Langford continued, was the only way: in which such. cases should, be con-, ducted. The same evidence was brought: .forward* and- the.appear.authority diadi xeversed his decision.. . It was not Mr Justice Frazer, but the system, which was to blame.* Evidence that the original appeal decision was prepared in the office of the Transport Department was afforded' by the fact that the clerk preparing it had telephoned him (Mr Langford) in Christchurch to discuss the matter. “ I upheld the metropolitan authority,” he said, “ but. the advice given to Mr Justice Frazer was not to grant' the licenses ’' concerned, so that ' he: blundered temporarily, in his finding.” . Advocating the hearing of appeals in public sittings, Mr Langford said that such a : privilege should be available to the humblest individual in the land and he was sure Mr justice Frazer would agree with him if he had time' to take all the> cases in this way. Submissions -had been made that he should receive assistance. ; . “JAUNDICED” OFFICERS. Reverting to the application by Rhodes, Mr Langford said that a letter had been written from Greymoutli to Mr H. J. Knight, secretary of the Rental Car Proprietors’ .Association, alleging"'-that--‘Rhodes, while in Greymouth, had made a statement that he was sure of getting further licenses on March 8. He himself had written to the Commissioner of "Transport stating that,he-had been informed by the. No. 4 Licensing Authority (Mr V. Raines) that the letter submitted on appeal ! in the (Rhodes case had been a reflection on his integrity. The commissioner in his reply had said that

this statement was incorrect, as no such letter had been put in as a submission in the Rhodes appeal. Mr

Knight, however, had called on him with the letter in question, and he had decided that it was a matter for the Minister. He had accordingly passed it on, hut had not retained a copy. “ I am not even accorded the cour-

tesy due to an office boy in being given an opportunity to make any reply to this nasty, insidious sugges- ' tion',”'added Mr Langford, who described certain officers of the department in Wellington as “ jaundicedminded.” ...He • added:, “Had it not been for the discussion with Mr Raines, I would have been in ignorance of this insidious, rotten,' libellous suggestion, which has lingered in the minds of the Minister and others in Wellington.”