THE TRANSPORT WAR.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 20 September 1928, Page 2

THE TRANSPORT WAR.

PRIME MINISTER AND HIS FAVOURITE CHILD SOtASD PROPOSED. NELSON, Last Night. Government and municipal interference in motor transport was discussed at the, ; New Zealand Motor Trades 1 conference to-day. 1 The subject was introduced by Mr Duncan E. Bauchop (Wellington).. He referred to the deputation to the Premier, which stated private enterprise did not object to Government competition, provided it was on an equal basis. It was pointed out that Government motor undertakings paid no rates and no taxes 4 (especially income-tax) they allowed for "ho depreciation and published no balance sheets to show their financial position. Frequent losses'bn these-nndeftafci|igs ,were- hidden. 5 Sn. the • public accounts, so that they could : not be, identified. If 'the . Government would meet these objections/ then private enterprise would have no objection to competition. The speaker went on the refer to various private business interests that had recently protested against Government interference and competition. * ‘ The '1928 committee, M said Mr ,Bauehop. was a nbri-politichl Organisation which laid its grievances before the Government on this and similar matters, not because the committee felt redress could only be obtained from the fGovernment in power. . , The main thing they were up against, he said was that the Prime Minister was also Minister*, of Railways. The railways his child and had to justify their position, THo Prime Minister did ' that dir methods with which the motor interests did not altogether agree and which jeopardised the chances of legitimate private enterprises. There should bo no common catch phrase; 'Road v. rail,’ it Should be f road and "rail. * Motor interests felt the railways had a very useful sphere of operation, but lines should not be built *in nonpaying districts, where good roads would be of much greater value. Road and railway transport each had its own function and they should work together, and not in conflict. The position in other countries showed that in future road transport was going to be the big brother ’of ' the railways. The public was called up onto bear the losses bn the railways, but if it showed, as it unmistakably did, that it wanted motor transport as well, then it should be allowed’ to have what it is obviously prepared to pay for.

The motor interests felt that the setting up of a Transport Board would solve their difficulties. The .board should Be composed of representatives of all bodies that handled the question of transport. 1 Mr Bauchop then moved the following motion: “This conference, embracing practically: the whole of the wholesale and retail motor trade interests of the Dominion, records its protest against unjust Government and municipal competition in motor transport on the following grounds; (a) that the present motor transport has.been evolved as the result of a public demand and could not persist if it. did not fill a definite public need(b) that private enterprise has every fright to institute and. maintain a transport service, irrespective of the fact that such service may actively compete with existing services—-Government, municipal or private; (c) that the fact that large sums* of public money are invested in the Government and municipal transport systems- is no satisfactory reason why private enterprise should be discouraged or penalised, as real progress-is based upon economic law’s and can nevpr be permanently repressed by non-economie restrictions; fd) that any Government or municipal trading ventures should be amendable to the same laws and taxation as private businesses and responsible for the production of trading and profit and loss accounts. The Government is requested to appoint an independent board to investigate transport problems embracing all Dominion roads ‘ and rail traffic and to bring down a report as early as possible; ,(c) this conference approves of and supports the policy and activities of the '1928 committee.’*” '

The motion was': seconded -by Mr L, A. Edwards (Wellington.) Governments, he said, did not listen to reason but to votes, and when the present Government realised that delegatee from all parts of New Zealand had passed this resolution, then it' would take notice. The object of the .resolution was to deal with matters from the political aspect. As an example of what was going. on under the surface, the speaker said if a motor service was inaugurated that was likely to affect a railway or a tramway per- - ■vice, then the Government or municipal machinery was set to work to prevent that service from paying. Promoters of the service were approached and told that if they did not stop; atariff war would be begun and they would be run off the road. This was bureaucratic control of the worst sort. New Zealand was supposed to , be the home of liberty, but there was not as much liberty as was generally supposed. The pernicious system of Government by Order-in-Council brought in legist lation over-night which nobody knew anything about. It was time for the motor interests to protest against Government and municipal interference with their liberties. The remit was supported by Mr Ashton, President of the. Motor . Trade Association,’ .and Mr E. Reynolds, President of‘the Wholesalers* Association, and parsed unanimously.