TRANSPORT APPEALS

Northern Advocate, 13 October 1934, Page 11

TRANSPORT APPEALS

CONSTITUTION TRIBUNAL. CITY COUNCIL’S PROTEST. MINISTER’S REPLY. (Per Press Association.—Copyright.) NELSON, This Day. The Minister of Transport has replied to the protest of the Nelson i City Council against those provisions ;of the Transport Act which allowed the same persons who make licensing decisions to hear appeals. The Minister stated that New Zealand is one of the few countries where the right of appeal is granted from decisions of transport licensing authorities. “It haa become apparent under the 1931 Act,” stated the Minister, “that the procedure would be exceedingly costly. The 1933 amendment was not designed to deprive, nor does it deprive, any interested party of a reasonable hearing. It does, however, make possible, by the elimination of unnecessary and complete rehearings, a measure of financial relief to all concerned. “Under the earlier legislation the tribunal was an appeal board pure and simple. The amending legislation established a board, the primary function of which is to co-ordinate the various forms of transport, the methods of exercisihg that function in rerespect of road transport being by means of power vested in the board to determine appeals lodged from the decision of transport licensing authorities. In the particular case with which the council is concerned, exception is taken to two members of the board, as they constituted a personnel, which, as the Central Licensing Authority, made the decision appealed against. “Although it is extremely important that the Transport Co-ordination Board should have final jurisdiction in transport matters, in view of the fact that the board has a large amount of investigational work for the Government in hand, that only a small number of cases is involved in the decision, and that a similar condition cannot arise again, I am prepared, having already consulted the board, to exercise the powers conferred on me, and arrange for those cases not already heard, and which come within the category complained of, to be heard by a different personnel from that which constituted the old Central Licensing Authority. “I can assure you this decision does not in any way imply that the Government has any reason to doubt the impartiality of the members of the board, but in view of the * attitude adopted by those interested, it has been decided to remove any suggestion of injustice or departure from what is the usual procedure, in spite of the fact that it has been ruled by the Supreme Court that the board can legally hear such cases.” The council decided that the Minister’s reply was generally unsatisfactory, although it rioted with satisfaction that arrangements had been made for a different tribunal to hear impending appeals. It was decided to ask the Minister to inform the council what action he intends to take in repealing the section in dispute, in response to the representations of the New Zealand Law Society,' the Canterbury and Wellington Chambers of Commerce, and the almost unanimous opinion of the local bodies of the Dominion,