ACT DEFECTIVE

Grey River Argus, 16 May 1946, Page 7

ACT DEFECTIVE

- Transport Licensing CHRISTCHURCH, May 14. Agreement with the recently expressed view of the Transport Appeal Authority (Mr Justice Frazer) that there were weaknesses' in the Transport Licensing Act, was expressed to-day by the No. 3 Transport Licensing Authority, Mr V. Raines. ‘‘There are many weaknesses in the Act and the regulations, and they are just about due for revision,” he said. Mr Raines' agreed with the Appeal Authority that an operator should not be permitted to start in business when his appeal was to be heard. He cited additional weaknesses in the Act. There was, for example, no provision for parties receiving notice of intention to object to the granting of a licence. This should be brought into accord with the ordinary legal notice of the intention to defend in the Magistrate’s Court. A further omission was that there was no provision for the compulsory attendance of witnesses by subpoena or otherwise. There was also no provision for grounds on which a re-hearing might be granted. Referring specifically to Mr Frazer’s comments, Mr Raines pointed out what he termed a tremendous fault in the 'Act. It was possible, he said, for an applicant to have an application heard and decided and an appeal on the same matter heard and decided all within three or four months. Then the applicant was permitted under the Act to lodge the same application again, to be followed by the same appeal. This had happened in a rental cars case which had prompted Mr Frazer’s comment. “This results in a tremendous waste of public money and valuable time,” added Mr Raines, who urged that when the Act and regulations were revised, members of the legal profession, experienced in transport, should be consulted.