Mow Socialised Transport Operates In Northland

Northern Advocate, 12 August 1948, Page 3

Mow Socialised Transport Operates In Northland

SMITH'S VIEWS ON . .

WELLINGTON, Thu. (Sp.).—Viewing- the Transport Law Bill as a preliminary to the socialisation of the industry, Mr S. W. Smith (0 —Hobson), speaking on the second reading in the House of Representatives last night, gave some examples of howsocialised transport works in his own district. Butter, he said, was taken by rail from Whangarei to Auckland, which was half the distance again from Auckland to Maungaturoto, for twice the price charged from the latter point, and rail passengers from a point 88 miles further from Auckland than Whangarei were transported to Auckland for 5/- less by rail than from Whangarei.

The explanation of this extraordinary business was that on the cheaper route the railways were in competition with their own road service. It was time, said Mr Smith, that something was done to improve the rail service by providing a better timetable with rail cars because the people of the Far North, who had to rely on a monopolistic road service run by the Railways Department, were being stung. The department took over all the best-run road services and left _ the least profitable to private enterprise. Their road service was four days a week though the private operators had run on six days. Dairy factory directors were greatly concerned over the clause empowering a periodic review of all carrying contracts, although in the past cream cartage contracts were specifically exempted. Many of these contractors did the work on a bare margin because it was an introduction to other business on the route.

socialise the transport of the country, but that was simply a repetition of an old cry. Mr R. G. Gerard (O—Ashburton) said many of the present difficulties in the transport industry arose from the operation' of the 40-hour five-day week. There was a case for delicensing and allowing private enterprise to do the job. There should be a fair share of licences for small operators. Mr R. Macdonald (G —Ponsonby) said one-third of the Dominion’s road transport was operated by ex-service-men. The Rehabilitation Department was not likely to advance money to returned men for transport businesses and to train them at the public's expense if the Government intended to nationalise the services they were operating. He thought the railways could be run economically and profitably. MORE WORK FOR JUDGES

Mr Watts said there were greater difficulties facing the railways today than ever before.

He had the gravest objection to the constitution and powers of the coordination council.

RULE OF LIABILITY A case might be made for establishing a rule of absolute liability to piotect pedestrians involved in accidents with motoi* vehicles, said Dr Finlay (G—North Shore). . When a pedestrian was hit by a car the liability was usually disputed, and there was often contributory negligence on the part of the pedestrian, but it could be argued that the cost oi accidents should be charged on those who owned and used cars. If absolute liability were established, pedestrians injured by motor vehicles could be asured of compensation without having to prove the motorist’s negligence. Dr Finlay said the coordination council was a purely advisory body with no executive power, and there were no grounds for the fury and despair with which the Opposition had greeted the bill. NOT MINOR’ BILL Mr S W Smith (O—Hobson) said the bill was by no means a minor one. The Opposition had become used to the introduction in the House of “minor” bills having major effects. He considered the bill was a preparatory one for tiie complete socialisation of transport, which would come later Mr R. M. Macfarlane tG—Christchurch Central) said tne Opposition had read into the bill an attempt to

It would be a means of controlling the whole industry by Government officials and trade union nominees.

Mr Watts deplored the creation oi' more work for the judges of 'the Supreme Court by the setting up of the Transport Charges Appeal Authority

He said the bill established a bad precedent: It tended to make greater work for the judges and to put the business of the Supreme Court further behind. Supreme Court judges had certain functions to discharge in the Dominion.

Their aloofness rind qualifications gave them a high standing with the public. They were not appointed to the Supreme Court to be chairmen of waterfront or other commissions and tribunals. It had been a bad development to put persons with the status of judges on Land Sales Court and similar bodies.

Mr J. B. F. Cotterill (G—Wanganui) was speaking when the House adjourned.