MOTOR BUS TRAFFIC

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3248, 19 January 1926, Page 11

MOTOR BUS TRAFFIC

PROTEST AGAINST PROPOSED REGULATIONS. A largely attended meeting of owners of motor transport vehicles and others interested in the motor trade, was held In Palmerston North yesterday to protest against certain clauses .In the draft regulations prepared by the Government for the purpose of controlling heavy transport traffic. Mr F. S. Goldlngham was elected to the chair. Mr B. L. Hammond, assistant secretary of the New Zealand Employers Federation addressing the meeting, remarked that the Government had issued the regulations in draft form to invoke discussion. They did not reflect the policy of the Government, but had really been framed at a conferenec of tramway engineers and gave certain local bodies just what they had been asking for in the matter of motor bus control. Some of the regulations were revolutionary and were what one might expect from a Labour Government. Mr Hammond exemplified the position which would result from the enforcement of tha regulations in the case of Wellington, where the City Council ran the tramway service. It would mean that the City Council, as the local body enforcing the regulations, would be sitting in judgment over its competitors in the transit business. Such a position, was impossible. Under the guise of regulating motor omnibus transport, the proposed regulations aimed at eliminating private enterprise entirely, so as to give a monopoly of passenger transport to public bodies. They also endorsed the principle of public body trading not merely in competition with private enterprise, but on such advantageous terms as to effect the absolute exclusion of private enterprise from an avenue of trade in which it has every right to engage. The principle of eliminating private enterprise from a particular sphere of trading activity in which local bodies might be engaged was not only vicious but capable of extension to every form of trading in which any local body might choose to engage and Was likely to lead to similar elimination of motor transport of passengers and goods in competition with the railways. There was no limit to which the principle may be put into practice once it was admitted. It was also wrong, said Mr Hammond, tp require the licensing authority to be first, satisfied that existing transport facilities along a particular route v dre inadequate before granting an ’omnibus license. Mr Hammond said the fight against the regulations coming into force would have to be a strong one and he hoped all employers would voice a protest against the principles Involved. Private enterprise had a legitimate right to use the roads. Again, it was not possible for public bodies to trade on equal terms and the criticism was as much a protest against local bodies extending their powers In other directions. It was no use-the Government blinding itself to motor transport as it was bound to come. The test of one system against another was a matter of years, but in the interests of the public, both systems should be given a fair trial. Local bodies should really be grateful for the experiment In that direction that private enterprise was making. While endorsing the principle of insurance, the proposed amount of cover was so unreasonable as to lead to the inference that it had been fixed at such figures for no other reason than to penalise private enterprise. The chairman, in inviting discussion, remarked, that his experience of local bodies was that they were Socialistic to the bone. The country, however, had not returned Mr Coates for the adoption of such tendencies by him.. “In London, New York, and Paris,” said Mr A. Guy, “Parliaments meet to pass laws, but In New Zealand they meet to run concerns.” He would advocate a public meeting of citizens to discuss the subject. The question resolved itself into State versus private enterprise.

Mr Hammond, on the other hand, did not advocate a public meeting. He thought protests through the Associations Interested would have more effect

Mr Guy moved that a public meeting be called to consider the regulations. He thought Palmerston North citizens realised what the motor buses were doing for Palmerston North.

Mr Hammond stated that a conference was being held in Wellington in February, when counter regulations would be submitted for approval. It was thought better to make criticism of the regulations constructive instead of destructive.

After further discussion the meeting decided to adopt the protests passed by the Master Carriers’ Association of Wellington, which read as follows:

(1) That the regulations are a direct blow at private enterprise, inasmuch as they discriminate in favour of public body trading to the detriment of private enterprise.

(2) That the principle embodied In the. regulations is a violation of the rights of private enterprise to engage h. any class of legitimate trading, and furthermore, a dangerous one, inasmuch as it may be subsequently extended for the purpose of eliminating private enterprise from the transport of goods and passengers, where such transport is in competition with the railways.

(3) That as motor transport Is proving of great convenience, and a cheaper mode of transport to wageearners in particular, any regulations having the effect of restricting motor transport must necessarily react upon the cost-of-living and the standard of living of the workers, and, consequently, upon awards of the Arbitration Court

The question of organising In Palmerston North to fight the proposed regulation was also discussed, it beIng finally decided, on the suggestion of Mr Hammond, to work through the Palmerston North Employers’ Association as having a bigger backing, and carrying greater weight with the Government. The following were elected a committee to handle the situation locally:

Messrs F. S. Goldlngham, D. F. Smillle, A. Burges, F. Galley, E. A. Taylor and A. Guy, Borough Council Discusses Position. The question of the proposed resu-lt-tions governing the control of motor buses was briefly discussed at the Borough Council meeting last evening when a letter was received from the Auckland City Council, suggesting a meeting to discuss the matter the day prior to the February conference.

Cr. Eliott voiced the opinion that the regulations were intended to 'squeeze out private enterprise wherever it came ir< contact with municipal tramways. "This borough," thank goodness, "has no tramways," be concluded. Cr. Edwards remarked that some people thought the Government could not go too far- in interfering with private enterprise. “I think it can,” he added.

> Cr. Hodgens moved that the matter be referred to the transport committee to deal with. One might think it a little unusual for him to agree v ith the previous speakers when a matter of private enterprise was up against municipal trading, but some people didn’t seem to realise that regulations made to cover the pei-K when bullohk wagons were in vogue, would not do in days of motor vehicles. In effect, the regulations said that the Poxton buses must not run, because there was a railway to Foxton already catering for transport. The Mayor, while agreeing with a great deal of what the previous speak. Srs had said, pointed out that it would e most unfair to ratepayers who had large sums of their money invested in t'emwaya and other transit concerns, rot to have some regulations where motor buses threatened to come in and overrun their business. In maty cases, where motors were In competition with trams, they ran just at rush hours, only on routes that paid and just ahead of the trams using the same stops. Subject to proper regulations, the motor buses should receive exactly the same treatment as the tramways. In Palmerston North, for instance, there were five routes. Suppose three paid and two did not What would be tha effect if omnibuses took up the running only on the paying routes at rush hours? That would be unfair from the ratepayer#’ point of view. While there were no tramways In Palmerston North, there was a large amount of money invest ed in municipal motor buses. Os. Low and Hodgens will represent the Council at the conference.