FIXATION OF TRANSPORT CHARGES

Northern Advocate, 9 December 1936, Page 3

FIXATION OF TRANSPORT CHARGES

NOT VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED BY FARMERS’ UNION

The stated proposal of the Minister of Transport, the Hon. R. Semple, to fix the prices charged by carriers was discussed at length by the Whangarei Sub-Provincial Executive of the Farmers’ Union yesterday. The president, Mr A. B. Moore, said that Mr Semple had said that he would fix charges if the carriers would work out a scale for submission to chambers of commerce, the Farmers’ Union and others for approval, and, if approved, he would give authority for the fixation of the prices. It was not clear, Mr Moore said, whether the prices would be fixed if there was opposition or not.

Mr Moore said he had invited Mr J. G. Barclay, M.P., to attend the meeting and give what information he could.

Eliminate Unnecessary Vehicles,

Mr Barclay said that he was not associated with the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works, and he was not familiar with Mr Semple’s intentions. At the same time, it* was the intention of the Government, when the Transport Act was passed, to eliminate unnecessary vehicles from using the roads, to license only sufficient vehicles to do the work and to eliminate uneconomic competition. A natural corollary of the licensing of carriers was to prevent prices from going too high. If only a certain number of carriers were licensed they would be foolish not to get together and. fix prices. That would only be good business. They had the choice of, co-operative or competitive systems. Mr Semple had wide powers,-and Mr Barclay said he was unable to say if he was going to force the fixation, of prices. He thought, however, that it was a wrong attitude to take up to suggest , that fixation meant increases in - prices. It had hot meant that in cemerit and fertilisers. The prices of benzine and oil had not increased and these items were big factors in running trucks.

Mr L. Williams said that the position

arose in his district that there were two licensed carriers. They had one truck each at the outset, these being considered sufficient for the needs of the district. However, they obtained two trucks ,each, and now had four each. But, at each renewal, they said that there was no room for a fresh licensee to come in,* A third licensee deprived of commencing a service, yet the present license holders had increased the numbers of their vehicles.

Monopoly Aspect,

Mr A. Wiblin said that one aspect of this monopoly was that one or two carriers had a monopoly of carting pigs and bobby calves to the detriment of the Pig Marketing Association; Two or three carriers had become agents for the meat trusts, and if a farmer wanted anything sent by them for the Pig Marketing Association they were almost barred, although the truck owners were not allowed to do that by law. Truck owners should be barred from taking agencies. If the licenses were zoned out, then those in the zones should take all the traffic offering. Getting a license should not mean getting a license for any one firm. The president: That is an important point, this field for exploitation. Mr Wiblin: We should oppose anything in the way of price fixation at the next transport authority sitting. dVTr W. H. Chetham said that similar trouble had been experienced in his district. It seemed to be a case of an agent working with the carrier. The president said that a local Master Carriers’ Association had been formed. It seemed to him that, if charges were fixed, it would result in increased costs. While most admitted that some form of control was necessary under the present system, the Farmers’ Union’s view, was that the real solution lay in the principle of the user paying for the road. Proposed Charges. Mr K. Stevens said that he had been told that the proposed charges were lid a mile both ways. Mr A. Wiblin moved that the president and three others form a committee to attend the next meeting of the Transport Authority and oppose price fixation, Messrs F. E. Carter, H. E. Hewlett and L. Williams were appointed, together with the president. The motion was carried. Mr Williams said he had a lot of sympathy with the Minister of Transport, and all would agree that the Farmers’ Union did not support “open slather’’ in carting. The business should be controlled to a certain extent, for they did not want to see their roads destroyed by unnecessary movement of vehicles.

The president moved: “That this executive is opposed to a fixation of charges in the road transport industry, because we believe it to be against the public interest in that: (1) A close corporation of carriers with elimination of competition would result; (2) Rates fixed must include recent rises in costs and must therefore be at the farmers’ expense as the ultimate payer; (3) The farmer already endures double taxation for

reading in rates and motor taxation, and this would amount to a third impost; (4) It would act as a further restriction upon production and business and would penalise most heavily the man least able to bear it—the backblocks settler; (5) It would penalise those entirely dependent on road transport, as against those with alternative transport systems; (6) The farmer should have the same right as others in the community to call competitive tenders for his work.

“Finally, we express our belief that the bulk of the existing anomalies in road transport would be removed, and greater justice to all concerned be achieved, by the adoption in principle, in reading taxation, that the user should pay.”

The president: If we oppose fixation and the Government decide to proceed, would we have an opportunity of going before the Transport Authority? Mr Barclay: You should have.

Open to Criticism.

Mr Barclay submitted that the resolution opposing fixation of prices was open to a great deal of criticism. Competition would be limited by granting just sufficient licenses to do the work offering. Mr Moore; Then why are the carriers so keen on fixation of prices? Mr Barclay; They may get something out of it, but I don’t think they will. The fixation will be brought about primarily to protect consumers or users —in this instance to protect farmers against carriers. Otherwise, if the number of operators in any line is limited, they, being good business men, would come together and fix their own minimum prices. Mr Moore: In this instance we have interposing between the carrier and the user, the Transport Authority, and anything which the farmers have to say on the matter should be heeded.

Mr A. E. Robinson: The Union has consistently opposed the principle of fixation of prices, and, unless we are prepared to reverse our attitude altogether, should enter a protest.. There is nothing to prevent us working towards the amelioration of conditions which might be imposed upon us. The carriers intend to play the game according to the rules, and if we

are to be made to play, we are

going to play a little bit rough. Mr Moore: We are the ultimate payers and should have some say. Mr F. E. Carter said he opposed the remit, believing that the union should concentrate upon obtaining a compensating price.

' Mr A. Wiblin: We must not sacrifice every principle we have got for this new idea of a compensated price. If we are not careful all our policy aims will be thrown over for it. Mr Moore then altered the preliminary sentence of the motion to read; “That this executive will not voluntarily accept fixation of charges in the road transport industry until the principle of a compensated price for the export of farmers’ produce is accepted,” and, with this amendment, the motion was carried.