PARLIAMENT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 150, 27 May 1936, Page 11

PARLIAMENT

CONTROL OF TRANSPORT

LABOUR MEMBER CREATES SURPRISE

An in teres I ing l turn was o-iven Hip debate on the Transport Licensing Amendment bill, which was passed by the House of Representatives, yesterday, when the Labour member for Tauranga, Mr 0 H. Burnett, frankly said the Minister would have been well advised to have included in the measure provision for an appeal court. Opposition members interpreted this as a sign of lack of harmony in the Labour ranks. The Shops and Offices Amendment Bill was further debated.

TRANSPORT BILL PASSED,

formal grounds and to secure the Alin ister against frivolous attacks.

PROVISION FOR APPEALS.

Mr K. J. Holyoake pointed out that the Minister had said the Bill followed the English Act, but that was merely a smoke screen. He claimed that | thousands of persons at the last elecI lion voted against the last Government because they had gone too far in the control of transport, especially in the , back country districts. Mr S. G. Smith asked the Minister to give a precedent for establishing I that the decision of the Minister could not he checked, challenged, or revoked in any court of law.

URGED BY LA HOUR MEMBER

Per Props Association. AY ELLINGTON. Mav 26

When the House of Representatives met. at 2.80 pm. urgency was accorded the passing of the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill and the Shops and Offices Amendment Bill.

On the third reading of the Transport Bill, Mr j. Hargest said the Opposition had been able to secure a few amendments and the Bill had been materially improved, bnt there wees still some clauses which were pernicious to n degree. The Bill was opposed to everything that had made up New Zealand’s character in the last 100 years.

j EFFECT ON INVESTORS. | Sir Alfred Ransom said that undoubtedly many persons who had money invested in road services would be seriously affected. He said Mr Mason’s remarks all went to show that the ' Government had thrown British justice to the wind, and he was attempting to uphold an unjust provision, hir Altred thought it was a remarkable statement Air AFason had made that the right of appeal was withdrawn because the appeal favoured one particular .section of the community. ; Air H. Atmore said that in his district all small competitors of large concerns were squeezed out by the Transport Co-ordination Board. He would sooner trust the Alinister than a board not representative ot the people. !If the Minister made mistakes there 1 would he plenty of critics; but let them wait till he did so l>efore they started poisoning the people’s minds. Hon. R. Semple, in reply, said he j had stated in the Committee stage | that, with a minor alteration, the clause dealing with the Minister’s decision was exactly what the glish Act aimed to do. There was no appeal against the Transport Co-ordina-tion Board’s decisions except on the ground of jurisdiction or procedure. It had been claimed that the measure was unpopular in the public mind and that its introduction was resented, but he had not received one telegram or 1 one letter genuinely objecting to the i measure, and lie asked the Opposition, ' if it had any, to let him have them. | There was no real logical or valid ob- ! jection that had come to him as MinI ister from the people or transport operators. The Opposition’s objections were only “moonshine and bunkum.” He had never attacked the Co-ordina-tion Board, but he was bound now to do so. Since he had been Minister he had travelled the country and wherever lie had gone he had received many deputations asking him to get rid of j the hoard. Air Semple said he had not 1 heard one individual defend the hoard, I and if they had not one friend in the 1 Dominion there must be something | wrong with them. Even conservative newspapers used some very indicting language against the board, and deputations, as he had said, had asked him to get rid “of this internal machine.” j The Alinister would at least be answer- , able to the people for what he did. I While he was Minister of Transport !he would see to it that no injustice ! was done to anybody. i:c was satis- | fied the Transport Co-ordination Board j had let the last Minister down, because there were many good provisions in ! the Bill and if these had been put into operation they would not have had the tangle they were in to-day. But an incompetent board had entered the picture and crucified itself and crucified the Alinister. The Minister, however, had remained loyal to it, and would not say so. The aim of the I Government was to give the people a j speedy, sale and up-to-date form of service.

Mr C. H. Burnett (Labour) said an appellate tribunal should have been appointed and the deciding of appeals not felt to the Minister who would have been well advised if he had appointed Such a tribunal. The people had to be protected for the future and those who had large amounts invested in transport services had to bo protected. He was not afraid of the position under the present Minister as lie did not think there would be many appeals, but a Minister should shelter himself behind a tribunal and avoid any controversial feeling that might arise. Mr W. J. Broadfoot said lie wondered why Mr Burnett had waited till that stage to express his opinion. He agreed that the Minister had pintle a mistake regarding appeals. The people's rights were in jeopardy and they had a right to have their interests guarded in a. proper method and in a proper quarter. Mr AY. T. Anderton said there was nothing in the Dominion that needed co-ordination more than the transport industry. He considered a single individual as a licensing authority could settle matters better than the tribunals as constituted in the past. Air AY. P. Endean said the Bill, as far as the appeal provision went, struck at the vital principle of British jiistioe. ■ , Mr J. G. Barclay referred to cutthroat competition existing between taxi proprietors who were forced to work very long hours and said coordination among taxi proprietors was the proper course to adopt. APPEAL FOR JUSTICE.

Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates asked why the Opposition sliould sit down calmiy and nave Australian legislation imposed upon New Zealand. Mr Burnett eoulu not hope to escape criticism by making his protest at mat late stage of the Bill. Mr Coates retoned to “tne complete dictatorial" powers taken by the Minister and said the Minister placed liimself superior to all courts of the land, and members of the Government party were responsible with the Minister for breaking down a principle ot justice that had caused conflict in the past. He predicted that before long the Minister would appoint Judges 01 the Supieme Court and magistrates to give a semblance of fair piay to the measure. The appeal provision was taken from the Queensland Act, hut did anybody suggest that conditions in New Zealand were similar to those in Queensland? The Bill was a retrograde step and departure from the principles of British justice and freedom which, he believed, was the most precious thing to conserve. Hon. D. G. Sullivan said Air Coates’s speech was a complete misrepresentation of the clause dealing with appeals. He claimed the Government had every right to protect a license that it had purchased. Jt was the people’s money that was involved and lie wanted security for the people’s assets. lit. Hon. G. AV. Forbes said the Opposition had endeavoured to protect the rights of the public and interests of men who were running the private services of the Dominion. 'The whole policy of the Government was to have State services

The third reading was carried and the Bill passed.

SURPRISE CAUSED

AIR BURNETT’S ATTITUDE

RIFT IN THE LUTE.”

An interesting turn was given in the third reading debate on the Transport 'Bill when a Labour member, Mr C. H. Burnett, criticised the Minister of Transport, Hon. It. Semple, tor having tailed to make provision in the Bill for some form of appeal court or tribunal. “I am sure that the Minister in control of transport at the present time will give every necessary consideration to appeals,” Mr Burnett said, “but I think that there should be some protection in the Bill lor cases which might arise in the future. We must see that people with big sums invested as they have in these services have some protection for their interests. 1 do not care how well-intentioned the Minister may l>e, it is always possible that some feeling might exist which would influence a position in the interests of the State. As I said, T am not afraid of the position arising under the present Minister. In fact I am certain that he will give every case a favourable hearing. “There may not be many cases which merit an appeal. But on the other hand (here may be some, aid I think that the Minister would have been wise to have made provision for some court which would allow those appeals lo be heard by a body clear of any controversial discussion which might arise. The Minister would have been wise lo have sheltered himself behind some appellate body which would have removed him from the influence of such controversial discussion.” Mr Burnett said that at the same time he realised that a person applying could go straight to the Minister and have his business dealt with quickly and that for the sake of expediency the Minister was the best person to approach. That had been realised in Britain, but at the same time lie thought that there should he some court along the lines he suggested. Air Coates said the speech bv the member for Tauranga had rocked the Government boat etui rocked it badly at that.

Hon. D. G. Sullivan : I will accept that.

Mr Forbes said the Opposition thought there was room for private enterprise, and it was the duty of the Opposition to see that the rights of private services could not be taken away without a full knowledge of what was being done- He held that there should be even-handed justice and that private enterprise should not he stifled. The Bill had elements of causing a great deal of dissatisfaction in the future and also causing insecurity in the minds of' those who, at present, were operating road services.

Hon. hi. G. K. Mason (Minister of Justice) said it was not the normal thing that appeals should be the usual procedure. That was not in accordance with the law, which held that litigation should he brought to finality. The law recognised that appeals favoured the man with the long purse and that better justice was not necessarily secured by extending the number of appeals. The intention of the provision was that the decision of the Minister should not be set aside on

Mr A. S. Richards: Not s ripple

Mr Burnett, added Mr Coates, had had all the opportunities to support the principles lie now advocated, but he had not voted for one of them. Apparently Mr Burnett had received protests from his electorate concerning the powers the Minister was taking under the Bill, but he could not expect to escape criticism in view of the mild protest he had made. His speech had got clean under the skin of the Minister of Transport and made him writhe.

The speech by Mr Burnett was also mentioned b.v Mr K. J. Holyoake, who

claimed that it gave the House an insight to the true state of affairs of the Government caucus. “It shows us that there is some little'rift in the lute,” Mr Holyoake said, “and that, after all, things might not b% as harmonious in the dovecote as it appears.” Air Speaker interrupted to point out that references to the Government caucus were not permitted in the debate.

ATTACK RESENTED

MR COATES DEFENDED

Air J. Hargest to-day referred to the “quite uni air and unwarranted attacks'’ made by the Alinister ot Transport, Hon. R. Semple, on lit. Hon. J. vjl. Coates during the second reading debate on tne Transport Bill. The Almister had referred 10 incidents which took place a decade ago. Air Jhargiat said. He had referred to works winch had been started i>v one Government and stopped bv another, with the support ol tne ha hour Party. “On this side of the House we deplore and resent the remarks ot the Minister,” Air Hargett continued. In referring to Air Coates, the Alinister had merely selected passages from certain reports to suit his argument. That was not quite playing the game. The Kirikopuni loop was recommended by engineers, who were probably still in Ooveniment departments and. at any rate, it had served the Minister’s party quite well. It wan a Government supported bv the Minister s party whicn hud stopped the Palmerston North deviation, and probably the Minister’s Government would start to work arid build it again. Later in the debate Air Coates said : “I cannot deal with the charges made by the Alinister of Transport, it was a vicious H.nd an unwarranted attack.” Mr Coates withdrew lliq word “vicious” at the request of Air Speaker, bv whom lie was called to order. ‘All- Coates: AYell, 1 shall say an unwarranted and a bitter attack couched in the most exaggerated terms. Aluch as the Minister of Transport might complain concerning recoriuneiidations lor railway improvements, Saul Air Coatos, it was extraordinary that such a policy was being given effect to bit by bit. The recommendations followed very closely those of the I' ayRaven Commission. The railway was still the premier service, but only for long-distance traffic and heavy merohandisc. r lliß Alinistor ot iranspoit had made several charges concerning bus services, and had tried to make the country believe that £54.000 was pa.id for junk. That was incorrect. Air Semple: 1 said much of it was junk. , . ... Mr Co at eis said that many of the buses ran lor some years after they were purchased.

SHOPS AND OFFICES BILL,

GOYERNAIENT CRITICISED,

DRUNK WITH POWER

In the House to-day Hon. H. T. Armstrong moved the committal of the Shops and Offices Amendment Bill. He said the Bill was the third of the industrial measures and followed the Factories Act and Industrial Conciliation And Arbitration Act. Since the Bill had been reported back from the Labour Bills Committee lie had received protests from both sides, one wanting the Bill retained and the other thinking it went too far. The Alinister reviewed the clauses of the Bill and said it was not proposed to allow overtime when there was a large army of unemployed searching for jobs. He said there was a practice of some large firms to place juniors in charge of branch shops and call them occupiers, but unless they were paid £6 in the case of male workers and £4 in the case of female workers they would be classed as shop assistants and would come within the scope of the Bill.

Regarding the wages of juniors, Air Armstrong said a business that could not afford to pay £2 a week to a youth with three years’ experience did not deserve to he in existence at all. Referring to overtime payments, Air Armstrong said vigorous piotests had been received that those receiving more than £3OO a year would be made to do all the overtime work and he proposed to amend that provision when the Bill was in committee.

The clause dealing with boardinghouses would also be amended in committee. At present the Bill covered a boardinghouse employing no fewer than two persons additional to members of the occupiers’ family and with accommodation tor ten boarders. An amendment would be introduced to make it cover boarding-houses with five boarders in order to bring within the scope of the Bill scores of board-ing-houses tliat would otherwise escape. Mr S. G. Holland said there were a number of excellent clauses in the Bill. The Opposition agreed with the principle of a 44-hour week and an overrate of Is Gd, but the more one saw of the Government’s legislation the more was one convinced the Government were a team of well-meaning idealists who were drunk with the power for which they had thirsted lor many years. There was a great feeling of unrest and uneasiness in the commercial community regarding the Government’s proposals, and that was shown by the representations being made to members and the Government. Ho urged the Minister to revise the provision for a meal hour after 41 hours of work, as lie contended that it would prove almost unworkable in shops. RAISING OF COSTS. Air C. A. Wilkinson said it was time conditions in shops and offices were made easier. Me emphasised that country people required shops to be open on Saturdays and he was glad to see that country peuple would be given an opportunity to sliop on that day. He mentioned that hotels were allowed to be open much longer than Shops and thougnt something stioiild be done there, 1 hough it would mean amending another Act. He could see no objection to including banks and solicitors’ offices in the Bill, though they worked short hours now. He thought Ike costs would be increased and coutnded that the people should be prepared to pay more for their goods. However, he thought increased costs were not a good thing. Mr C. H. Chapman said the Bill was a necessary measure to round off the industrial legislation introduced by the Government. He said that in the past wages in many shops had been disgracefully low and there were many young people to-day working in shops and offices lor a miserable wage ol 30s a week.

Mr W. J. Broadfoot said flic Bill would raise costs and would cause cl 1 1 - Acuities particularly in country districts. The Bill would tighten up conditions of hours and holidays, and lie did not think it would be of much benefit to the professions. The Bill was going out of its way lo pinprick the banks and auctioneers and was “piling on the agony” tor those running businesses. He agreed with the provisions prohibiting female labour at certain hours nnd said that if it paid businesses to run late at night proper wages should lie paid. The debate was adjourned and the House rose at 11.40 p.m.