TRANSPORT LAW

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 21 May 1936, Page 11

TRANSPORT LAW

SECOND READING DEBATE CONTINUED STATE CONTROL ATTACKED AND SUPPORTED SIX MORE SPEAKERS

• Mr W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo) referred to the claim of the Minister that the operators of the country were favourable to the Bill, and said that he had been told by operators that tile Minister had told them that the Bill would not be altered under any circumstances but that he was prepared to consider suggestions to make the new principles work better. It was like a hangman absolutely debarring any discussion with tke condemned man on the rights and wrongs of the hanging but expressing willingness to discuss the length of the rope and so on. (Laughter). The operators were filling the role of the condemned man, and it was not difficult to see who was the hangman. The original legislation was admittedly experimental and exploratory. There were four branches of transport—railway services, road services, coastal shipping and harbours, and air services .—and the total capital involved was £202,000,000, of which £160,000,000 was invested in publicly-owned services.

HAMSTRINGING PRIVATE ENTERPRISE The issue involved in the Bill was whether the whole of the transport services should be socialised or whether private operators would be allowed to function as in the past. The country was confronted with that issue. The avowed policy of the Government was to socialise the means of exchange, production. and distribution, and much of the Government’s programme in that direction had been implemented. On the face of it, the present legislation looked innocent, but in his opimon it was full of danger and the Government was using it as a cloak under which _to further hamstring private enterprise. The principal road service south of Dunedin were now State-controlled, and within the next year or two he would not be surprised to see all the main services in the South Island mopped up. For years to come the railway system must be the backbone of the transport system, hut the remarkabls growth ot the road services for goods and passengers had shown conclusively that theie was a need for additional and more mobile types of transport. He agreed that it was a Government’s function to control and regulate transport, but it was not in the best interests ol the people to have a State monopoly in the running of sucli transport. They had seen, under State control, vast sums spent on railways that were never warranted. In the old days they were called political railways and they had cost the taxpayer dearly. Were they not entering another such era? V ould not the State be pushed into starting uneconomic services on the road. In Ins opinion, that would happen notwithstanding assertions which would be made to the contrary. Private enterprise was much more careful m starting those services because it had to bear the losses and it could not foist them on to the public as was done under State control. A CATCH-PHRASE The people should not be deluded by the catch-phrase that transport was a public service and not an industry, said Mr Broadfoot. Under the guise of public service, all sorts of uneconomic services could be started and run, because the national exvhequer could be pillaged for the losses. He asked the Minister what assurance he could give the people that the same good service provided by the road operators of to-day would be available under State control. Ihe •future needs of the people of hew Zealand would be overlooked under State control just as they were neglected and overlooked in the past. The proposa to place each of the four licensing districts under one man was not sound. No one man would be capable of doing the job. The men appointed would be mere automatans in the hands of the Minister, and that was undesirable from every point of view. The clause making the Minister the final court of appeal from decisions of licensing authorities was a dangerous departure from established practice. The Minister had a full-time job .on public works, and another on transport, and he could not possibly do the appeal work personally. Under the claujs the Minister would be the all-highest. ‘‘He is a synthetic Caesar,” said Mr Broadfoot, amidst laughter, “a a d there is no appeal beyond this synthetic Caesar, so it is well for the Minister to realise what happened to Caesar. His best fnend, Bi j tus, destroyed him, and the Minister s best friend, the Minister of Radways, has been given power to override and dominate the Minister of Transport. The Minister’s finding could not be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called into question m any Court. Ihe Minister "had constructed for himself an armoured dug-out.

NOT DETERRED BY TALK ABOUT SOCIALISM

Mr J. A. Lee (Government, Grey Lynn) said he proposed in his speech t leave the sprat from Waitomo and bo after the mackerel from Kaipaia (the 1 • Hon. J. G. Coates). Mr Coates, on the c’-evious evening, had made a truly remarkable speech, and had promised what he had always failed to perform, lie had condemned in the present Bill a continuance of th e legislative processes •,vhich were established bv Governments of which he was an important member and indeed the leading figure. Mr Coates had talked about socialisation and ruination, but the time had gone when people were going to be deterred by talk about socialism. The late King George had said on one occasion, We are all socialists these days.” The member for Kaipara had argued that the Government was going to put even private cars off the road. He had heard the Minister of Public Works pictured in many shapes, but never before had he heard liim spoken of as a kill-joy. Hardly had Mr Coates made that remarkable statement when he followed it up with the further statement that the people were buying more cars—second-hand cars than ever before, so that instead of putting private cars off the road the Government apparently was putting them on the roads. It was not many weeks ago that it was said that the Government’s socialistic monetary policy would drive money out of the banks, but experience had shown that the deposits had increased. , , The Minister of Public Works had been called a Mussolini, said Mr Lee. Mr Coates: “A socialistic dictator. Mr Lee: “When the member for Kaipara was Prime Minister he set up the Auckland Transport Board, and he gave it the sole right to license in Auckland be gave it » complete monopoly and the right to say who should run services and who should not. Now the Minister

(From The “Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, This Day. The debate on the second reading of the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill was continued in the House of Representatives last night.

INEFFICIENCY OF STATE CONTROL

of Public Works is taking away the right, and lie is handing the right back to tlie Parliament of New Zealand and tho Government elected by the people. Who, then, is the Mussolini? The Minister of Public Works is called a socialistic dictator. He as a socialistic democrat, giving effect to the policy on which the party received a mandate at the last General Election.” ‘‘POLITICAL HUMBUG” Mr Lee went on to say that a lot was said about political control. He would like to know what political control was. In Iris view it meant control by a political party that had a mandate from all of the people, and was not responsible to any given clique. Had they not always had a form of political control? But it had been political control not always in the interests of the overwhelming masses, Taking the members of the Transport Co-ordination Board, Mr Lee said that Sir Stephen Allan was an ex-anti-Socialist candidate, Mr H. B. S. Johnstone was a squatter, and Mr Lisle Alderton was the chairman of a Reform organisation. He thought they could take the politics of the squatter for granted, but even if he happened to be a socialist there would still be a political majority of one on the board. That apparently was 11011-political control (Government laughter.) In his view much of the talk about non-political control was so much political humbug. It was interesting to recall that Mr Coates, who talked about the Government putting motorists oft' the road, had increased the petrol tax to lOd a gallon. If they had had a little more of that sort of thing, together with other forms of taxation, it would not have been long before motor transport, which Mr Coates described as ihe most modern form of transport, would be absolutely dead. He went on to say that- if the railways had had their fair due in the past no one would be able to declare to-day that the railways had failed. MINISTER OF RAILWAYS THE DICTATOR Mr H. S. S. Kyle (National, Riccartou) expressed doubt whether the Government informed the people on 27th November that it intended to socialise the means of distribution in the Dominion. It had already socialised the monetary system, and the marketing system as far as dairy produce was concerned, and lie contended definitely that the Transport Bill was another example of socialisation. He had discussed the Bill with several of tlie men who hud come as a deputation to the Minister, and lie learned that they had been informed that this xvas what the Government intended to do, and that this was no time to make a protest —they had to take it whether they liked it or not, but they had to take it. Mr Kyle said that the Minister of Railways would be the dictator, not the Minister of Transport. He detailed instances of how the State’s assumption of privately-owned transport services had failed where they were in competition with the railways, and how private enterprise subsequently had made a successful business where tlie State had incurred losses. He referred to a complaint made by the Hon. D. G. Sullivan when the transport legislation of 1931 was being discussed, to the eft'ept that it constituted a serious interference with the autonomy of local bodies. Mr Kyle wondered where the Minister was now. When the present Bill became law, he would ask the Minister what guarantee of autonomy were the local bodies going to get.

Mr Kyle quoted the case of the Christchurch Tramway Board, which was a political body controlled by Labour, and its efforts Jo run a feeder bus service. This service had cost the board the sum of £6OO one year, yet when a private individual took over control of the service lie made a success of it. That was a glaring instance of the inefficiency that resulted under municipal or State control. The Minister of Transport had referred in his speech to marine transport. Surely, said Mr Kyle, the Government did not intend to socialise this form of transport. They knew what happened in Australia when they had a State shipping service there. H e hoped there was no danger of the Government entering the shipping service of tlie Dominion. Private enterprise in shipping had been an outstanding example of success. Socialisation of the shipping services would be calamitous.

“The provisions of this Bill,” said Mr Kyle, “indicate that the Government is going to take over control of the whole of the transport services of the Dominion. The Minister of Transport says he does not want to be a dictator, but when ho talked about abolishing boards he told the Railways Board that it would get its running shoes. The Minister had met the motorists of the Dominion and had started to think of their power. He told them not to be perturbed—he had no idea of abolishing the Main Highways Board. If this Government is a democratic Government, if it is going to abolish one board, why not abolish the lot?” Mr Kyle added that the Transport Co-ordination Board, which was to go, had been one of the best buffers between the motorists and the Government, as it was immune from political control. A CONSOLIDATING MEASURE ADVOCATED The Rev. A. 11. Nordmeyer (Government, Oaniaru) said the Government had at least a Bill which would not ruin the country and that would not bring chaos and confusion in its train, Although the main legislation was only passed in 1931 the amendments made since then were so confusing that even members of the legal profession had to apply to the Transport Department for interpretations of the law. The Government would bo well advised to couj sider a consolidating measure to clarify j and simplify the law. There was another point that the Government should consider. It had to do with the road operator. If by regulation the interests of the road user were to be protected , from ruin from competition and his equity preserved ip his business then it seemed that that individual should have no right to any good-will because that good-will was created by the action of the Government.

Mr Nordmeyer said that Mr Coates had made some astounding statements on the previous night. He had said that he would oppose the Bill lock, stock and barrel. He then quoted

clauses of the measure that would result in a saving to the State. If one man licensing authorities were wrong the Right Hon. gentleman must remember that he had introduced tlie principle in his amendment to the Act ill 1933, when he had set up a one-man licensing authority, tlie Central Licensing Authority. "This Bill does what tlie then Minister undertook to do three years ago, and lie says lie is opposed to the Bill lock, stock and barrel,” continued Mr Nordmeyer. “PIN MONEY”

Referring to the Transport Co-ordina-tion Board Mr Nordmeyer said that Mr Coates said that the members of the Board were independent men and he created the impression that they were high-minded public spirited men giving their services free to the community. The chairman, Sir Stephen Allen, had received the paltry sum of £llß7 by way of salary for the two years lie had been chairman and in addition bad received travelling expenses amounting to £SOB. Mr Lisle Alderton, one of the members, had received £989 and travelling expenses £513, and Mr 11. B. S. Joliiistone, tlie other member, had also received £989 in salary and travelling expenses £547. The total was £4733. Mr Thorn: “Pin money.” Mr Nordmeyer said Mr Coates had become almost hysterical in respect to ancillary services. While not knowing the mind of the Government he could say that there was no intention of taking over the whole of the ancillary services. In respect to Mr Coates s reference to the Minister of Transport not having a bed of roses the Right Hoii. gentleman should know from lus past experiences in his attempts at dictatoislnp what it feeis like to try to be a dictator. (Government laughter). The ex-Minister of Transport had appointed a co-ordination board that was also an appeal authority and some of its decisions could be viewed with suspicion, lie referred to the Aucklund-Yv aikato goods services appeal. The licensing authority decided that in respect to 2o operators with 74 trucks the services were not in the public interest, but tlie Co-ordination Board granted the appeal. The board was also the licensing authority for air services and had ignored the pioneer companies and gave tlie services to Union Airways. The final appeal would now be to the Munster ot Transport, who had now tlie confidence of operators and would continue to liolti that confidence. “SAWDUST AND SHAVINGS” “I hope this Bill will go through. In fact, I know it will go through. Il l were as sure of being received into Abraham’s bosom as I am of this Bill becoming law, I would lie prepared to die to-morrow morning,” said Mr D. McDougall (Independent, Mataura). He described the arguments of the Opposition as so much sawdust and shavings, and said that if tlie Minister succeeded only in reducing tlie appalling number of road accidents he would earn tlie gratitude of the whole country. More than 300 people were “going over the border” every year, and thousands were being maimed or injured. Kanerty rules had been the order of the day for years. It was hardly safe for a man with grey hair to venture on to the road without running tlie risk of being knocked down by some drunken driver. “I am getting a bit gi’ey myself, and 1 am afraid to cross the street in Weilington/’ said Mr McDougall, amid laughter. ...... Mr Wright had complained that it was a dangerous principle to _ place absolute control of transport m the hands of any Minister. Mr McDougall said he agreed it would be a dangerous thing to do if the previous Government still occupied tlie Treasury benches. Mi Wright apparently was speaking from experience. Things had changed now, and Mr Wright need not worry himself about the present Minister oi Transport Mr Semple was quite able to look after himself. _ r „ , •Mr McDougall said that Mr Coates had declared that be opposed the Bill lock, stock and barrel. “Fancy anyone adopting that attitude when wo are sending 300 over the border every year, added Mr McDougall. “The member for Kaipara ought to be an undertaker. (Laughter). STATE CONTROL DEFENDED

State control of transport was defended by Mr W. J. Lyon (Government, Waitemata). The Bill, he said, was one of the milestones along the path of progress whereby science and human ingenuity could be linked together for the benefit of the people as a whole. New Zealand had allowed railway construction to become stultified. Nothing had been done to develop new services, and the addition of modern equipment had been neglected with the exception of a belated attempt to introduce railcars. If Government services were stultified private enterprise could not but help succeed. The Bill aimed at the closest co-ordination and the most effective co-operation in order to provide the most effective service for the community as a whole. Mr Lyon said he wondered what Would have been the rate of progress had the development of New Zealand and its railways been left to private enterprise. The practice in the past had been for a Government to open up new areas, inaugurate a service, and immediately it was in a position to show a profit to hand it over to private enteipriso to reap the advantage. Referring to transport developments at Home, Mr Lyon s;yd there were special courses tor transport officers. There was a special degree in transport, which was regarded as a science. There were scores of railway crossings in New Zealand that were veritable death-traps, and surely the Opposition Would agree that it was in the interests of the country to have closer co-opera-tion between the Minister ol ol Railways and the Minister of Transport. Members of the Opposition appeared to 'nave overlooked the fact that under the domocratic system the present Government had introduced into Parliament, for the first time personal jealousies and departmental parochialism would be eliminated and that® there would be a national outlook. The adjournment of the debate was moved by Mr S. G. Smith (Opposition, New Plymouth). The House rose at 10.20 p.m.