TRANSPORT CONTROL

Northern Advocate, 6 November 1931, Page 7

TRANSPORT CONTROL

RIGHT OF APPEAL. OBJECTION TO CLAUSE. DISTRICT SINGLED OUT. (From Our Parliamentary Special.) WELLINGTON, This Day. A provision in the Transport Licensing Bill that no person or body other than the Railways Board shall have the right to appeal against decisions of the Auckland Transport Board in its capacity as transport licensing authority, was the subject of some objection when the bill w 7 as in committee in the House last night. The amendment for the deletion of the clause was lost on the voices.

The main objector was Mr G. C. Munns (United —Roskill), who protested against one particular district of the Dominion being singled out for special exemption from the right of appeal against licensing authorities’ decision. The Minister of Transport, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, said that Auckland already had a Transport Board, which ■appeared to be working satisfactorily, and unless the board had full and absolute powers to control transport in .its area administrative difficulties would arise. Things appeared to be working satisfactorily in Auckland, and there was general public contentment. It seemed best to leave ite at that, rather than insert a clause in the Transport Bill which might raise appeals and difficulties. He thought it best to watch the position for a while and see how things progressed. Mr Munns; “It seems a vital matter, and I would like to sec the right of appeal given if possible. I am not satisfied we arc going to continue to have the harmony we have today. If a combination arose which acted detrimentally to any ono section of the community there is absolutely no right of appeal from the board’s decision. Why

should anyone be placed in that position ”

Mr W. E. Parry (Labour —Auckland Central): ‘ 1 The board is elected by the people.'’ Mr Munns: “Yes, but suppose there was a combination, and one district was divided against another?” It ap peared to him undemocratic that other bodies should have the right of appeal, but Auckland was exempted. Mr A. J. Stallworthy (United — Eden) said that after some stormy years they had arrived at the stage of peace and harmony in Auckland so far as transport services were concerned, but he declined to think that had come about largely by the wise administration of the present board, and because they were at present passing through a period of depression and stagnation. He agreed it might be wise to let things go on, and if a serious situation developed the position might then be altered, but he could not see sufficient reason why Auckland should be put in an inferior position to other people in the matter of appeal. The Auckland Transport Board would really be in a sounder position in the public confidence if the right of appeal was given. Mr W. A. Veiteh (United —Wanganui) pointed to the analogy of an appeal from decisions of the Supreme Court as a means of rectifying possible mistakes, and thought it wise to make the appeals apply to Auckland as well as other centres. He did not see why the right of appeal should not also be given to the Government Railways Board. Mr Munns suggested the deletion of the clause. “I am sorry,” said Mr Coates, “but I can’t do that.” Mr M. J. Savage (Labour —Auckland West): “Is this a revolution in the ranks?” Mr Munns: “That is my business.” Retention of the clause was carried on the voices.