PUBLIC UTILITIES

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 142, 18 May 1932, Page 6

PUBLIC UTILITIES

COMPETITION OR MONOPOLY, POSITION OF TRANSPORT SERVICES.

In the course of a judgment delivered by him in Palmerston North yesterday afternoon as chairman of the Transport Appeal Board, His Honour Mr Justice Frazer made some remarks regarding what he described as “uneconomic, unrestricted, wasteful competition.” Experience would said His Honour, that unrestricted competition might be a dangerous thing. The experience of the United States some years ago, in several large cities, showed that the competition between tramcars, motor omnibuses and taxi-cabs had been so intense that all three. services were bankrupting each other, with the result that the public were in danger of being left without tho services. The result of the competition was so severe that the public eventually suffered. Counsel had stated that a monopoly uas a dangerous thing, and while that was true, said His Honour, generally speaking, there were some services that could best be carried on as monopolies. The Post and Telegraph Department had a monopoly, but iiobody would suggest that it be deprived of tho monopoly of the postal and telegraphic business. Sometimes a monopoly was the best way' in which to control a service. The Transport Act was not for tho purpose of wiping out Competition altogether, and a monopoly was only granted when there was not room for two services -on the same route. Then in the public interest a service was given a monopoly—but it was severely controlled by means of the time-table and fares while the vehicles used had to be approved. From the public point of view there was another reason against extensive competition. They had gone in for an extensive roading scheme, and if twice as.many vehicles were allowed on the roads they would be worn out much more quickly. Ho knew that people had faith in the saying that competition was the life of trade, and had a holy fear of monopolies, but modern economists did not consider that monopolies were always a bad thing or competition always a desirable thing. After referring to some aspects of the particular case under review, His Honour added that, although a transport service was being carried on by a private company, it was a public utility and the public must be considered. By having a monopoly the company was acquiring not only a valuable right, but also a responsibility. The public were entitled to as reasonably comfortable seryice as it was possible to give. It was a case of public transport being dedicated to a private company and the company, must put itself in tho position of holding a public trust.