NORTHERN ADVOCATE DAILY FRIDAY, JULY 21, 1933. TRANSPORT CONTROL

Northern Advocate, 21 July 1933, Page 4

NORTHERN ADVOCATE DAILY

FRIDAY, JULY 21, 1933. TRANSPORT CONTROL

Registered for transmission through the post as a Newspaper.

There is an old saying that it is only when anything, he it sorrow or joy, good fortune or ill-luck, comes within an individual’s own experience that he truly realises the import of a similar happening as it affects others. We feel that this may he said of the people of Whangarei in respect of the working of the Transport Act, Wo are probably stating a fact when we express the opinion that a very small proportion of

people in the Whangarei district took a critical interest in the discnssions in Parliament when the legislation which eventually became the Transport Act was under discussion. It was probably realised by only a few that, hand in hand with desirable results,'■ the legislation'might be capable | of crushing individuals whose' enterprise should have protected' them against such disaster. Now,' however, the possible reactions of the legislation have been 1 brought home to them, and they will probably regard the question in a more interested manner. With the general, principles of the Transport Act there can be little quarrel. The growth of motor transport, and its competition with the railways,, constituted the primary reason for the introduction of the legislation. As is well known, motor services sprang up . like mushrooms some ten or fifteen years ago. Competition between services resulted in the cutting of fares and freights to such an extent as to make some services a liability, rather than an asset, to their proprietors. That, no doubt, was a matter which would have righted itself automatically, the weaker organisations going down before the stronger. However, there was another aspect of the question which gave cause for concern to the Dominion: the road services, by reason of the competition among themselves, undermined the Dominion’s huge investment in railways, which, losing revenue in an alarming manner, threatened to become a crushing burden. In addition to this, multiplication of motor vehicles, carrying heavy loads and travelling at high speed, seriously damaged, roads and highways, and entailed big expenditure on their maintenance, a burden which the general taxpayer had to bear. In such circumstances, some degree of regulation and control of transport was needed. Control has come with a.vengeance, and today we have the spectacle of State control of transport such as the most ardent supporter of Socialism did not dream of witnessing in his lifetime. The operations of the Transport Act have had some desirable results, but it is very likely that, in many instances, serious damage has been done to private enterprise that deserved a better fate. The case of Messrs Norman and Son, who have conducted a bus service between Whangarei and Hikurangi for some years, may be regarded as a ease in point, as may that of the Hamilton bus proprietary, which has conducted a service between the District Hospital and Mairtown since 1927. The eision of the Transport Appeal 'Board this week, in ordering the removal of Messrs Norman and Son’s buses from the service,/has inflicted a deadly blow upon the proprietors, who are not only deprived of a means of livelihood which they have developed during their years of service, but are left with expensive plant which may be regarded as practically valueless. In how many cases throughout . the Dominion has the same thing occurred? We do not know. It may be safely assumed, however, that the Wha-ngarei-Hikurangi bus incident is not unique. It does, however, raise the question whether provision should not have been made in the Transport Act for the compensation of any firm which, through no fault of its own, is sacrificed on the supposed altar of public expediency. We most emphatically think such provision should have been made. We do not suggest that a transport enterprise launched since the foreshadowing of a Transport Act made such investment risky should be entitled to compensation, but we are most strongly of opinion that any old-established firm, which has given satisfactory service, should not be summarily consigned to the scrapheap without hope of reward or resurrection. It is positively wrong that such a state of things should be possible, and we hope that legislation, with retrospective application, will, be placed on the Statute Book in order that compensation may be paid to those dispossessed of property the continued holding of which they might legitimately have expected.