Transport Control

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 22 May 1936, Page 7

Transport Control

Mr S. G. Smith (National, New Plymouth) said that the Bill contained some of the most amazing clauses he had ever seen ill any Bill. The only good points he could find were the Minister’s declarations that he was going to take powers to reduce the hours worked by some operators in New Zealand, and that- ne would try to control the owner-driver. The Bill provided political patronage oi the worst possible form, lie was shedding no tears over the loss of the personnel of the present Co-ordination Board, but he did regret the change ot policy' and he considered the clause giving complete control to the Mimstei should be deleted. \ MINISTER OF RAILWAYS The Minister of Railways (the lion. D. G. Sullivan) entered upon an explanation of clause fifteen of the Bill which, lie declared, merely protected services which tlie Railway Department had paid for, and did not take away the rights of private road operators. He said there appeared to be some misconception in the minds of Opposition members as to the intention of clause 15. The clause ■ meant nothing more or less than that, in cases where the Government, throug i the Minister of Railways or the department, has purchased a service, that seivice would be protected just to the extent of the license involved. Mr W. J. Poison (Opposition, btratford): ‘That gives you a monopoly, surely?” . The Minister: Supposing the Government railways had purchased a license and that previously there were two operators on the route of that particular service, then so far as the second license was concerned his rights would remain intact and in just the same position as they did under the original legislation. 'Can any reasonable exception be taken to that? Continuing, the Minister said he was amazed at the interpretation placed on the clause by some of the speakers. They seemed to think it over-rode the Minister and the powers conferred upon him by the rest of the Bill. He wished to emphasise again that no one could exercise the rights the Government had bought except with the written consent of the Minister. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Opposition, Kaipava): “The clause makes you dictator of the road.” Mr Sullivan: “You are talking sheer nonsense. I have discussed the matter with . the Minister of Transport, liis officers, the road operators, and lawyers.” Mr Coates: “Leave it to the. Minister of Transport. Why bring in the Minister of Railways?” Mr Sullivan: “What lam trying to explain is that the whole aim and object of the clause is to protect the thing the > Government has bought and paid for. Mr Coates: “That is the intention, yes.” OBLIGATIONS RETAINED The Minister said that under the previous legislation it was necessary for a licensee to go to the licensing authority for a permit if he wished to make any alteration to his buses or to improve the services in any way. All of those obligations were being retained. If there was one thing the Prime Minister had repeated more than another, it was the determination of the Government to see that whatever was taken would be paid for fairly and squarely. , “We will not deprive anybody of wliat honestly belongs to him,” said the Minister. “I think I have said sufficient to show conclusively that there is no justification for the attempt by the Opposition to scare the road operators and create an impression that an injustice is being done to a section of the community. No injustice will be done to anybody. We will be fair both to the road operators and to the public who own the railways.” NO INJUSTICE Mr Sullivan said that, so far from doing any injustice, it was the intention of the Government to lift some of the restrictions on road operators who were rendering really good service to the community. If it was found that the legislation was not giving effect to the desire to be fair to all parties, he

SECOND READING OF BILL CARRIED WILL KOTOS TRANSPORT SERVICES SUFFER? MINISTER OF RAILWAYS DEFENDS PURCHASES (From The “Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, This Day. With the exception of the reply of the Minister of Transport (the Hon. R. Semple), the debate on the second reading of the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill was concluded in the House of Representatives last night. The Minister replied in the House this morning, and the Bill was read a second time.

had not the slightest doubt the Minister of Transport would bring down an amendment to remedy the position, lie was very surprised, and disappointed, at the attitude of Mr Coates toward the future of the railways. Apparently it was Mr Coates’s belief that the railways were obsolete and that it was not possible for them to recover lost ground. That, however, was not his (the Minister’s) own view. (j Mr Coates: “A forlorn hope. Tlie Minister said he did not think Mr Coates was keeping abreast of developments and, incidentally, it was interesting to reflect that in days gone by Mr Coates had spent thousands of pounds on new railway workshops and on tlie very system which ho now declared was bound to be obsolete. Mr Coates: “1 didn’t say obsolete. 1 gave you certain facts and figures.. The Minister said he was not going to pose as a prophet, hut he thought Mr Coates was overlooking the possibilities of the’rail-car. It looked as though the rail-car won Id prove a very valuable means of winning back to the railways a substantial percentage of the traffic now carried by private motor-cars. “Personally I would sooner ride in a rail-car than in a motor-car,” said tlie Minister, “and I think that when we get the cheaper and more comfortable service which tlie rail-car can provide thousands will adopt that means of transport. There is no doubt in my mind that tlie fail-car is much more attractive than buses or ordinary trains.” The opinion that the transport industry could be adequately handled by a highway council and tlie Public Works Department, was expressed by Mr 11. G. Dickie (National, Patea), who said lie did not object to the disappearance of district boards. Ho suggested that the railways should revert to the system of having dining cars on trains to save unpleasant delays at certain stations. The Minister had taken on a man-size job, said Mr A. F. Moncur (Government, Rotorua), lie thought more attention should be paid to inefficient drivers who drove inefficient machines, and if the Minister and bis advisers could remedy that they would be worthy of their jobs.

A GREAT DEAL TO FEAR Mr J. Ilargest (National, Avarua) said it was only competition with the privately-operated road services that had made the railways what they were to-day. He agreed with Mr Coates that there was a great deal to fear in the Bill, and those fears were held by those who operated the bus services and the air services. The Hon. P. Fraser: “Have we not got tlie Prime Minister’s assurance that those services will not be legislated off the road?” Mr liargest: “Yes, hut what’s the use of those assurances when we’ve got this Bill. The Prime Minister is saying that all the time. In to-night’s paper he is reported as saying, ‘Don’t worry,’ but people are worrying. Mr Fraser asked Mr Hargest if be thought it right that he should try and arouse anxiety. Mr Ilargest retorted that when Mr Fraser was on the Opposition side he was an alarmist on every possible occasion. Referring tG the railways, Mr Hargest said that if the Minister attempted to make them pav on the basis of a capital cost of £54,000,000 he would fail, and if he was going to restrict other services in his efforts ha would do a great injury to the transport industry of the Dominion. AIR SERVICES Referring to air services, Mr Hargest said there had been criticism over the granting of licenses to Union, Airways and Cook Strait Airways. It was essential in the Gariy development of such services to have companies with, strong capital resources behind them. These, services had proved in a few months that they could be operated successfully. The companies had comfortable and fast types of machines able to make the journey in all weathers, and because of the ample funds behind the companies concerned it had been possible to purchase the best aeroplanes and secure the services of the ablest pilots. The Bill would make the Minister of Transport the transport dictator of New Zealand. Mr YV. M. C. Denham (Government, Invercargill); “A democratic one.” All* Hargest: “A dictator of any sort is bad and the public will not tolerate that state of affairs long.” Mr 11. M. Christie (Government, Waipawa) said that the Railway Department had treated its servants well and competition with the railways by a service that was almost unfettered’ by regulations was unfair. The transport service as administered by the Government would be run for the benefit of the people as a whole and not for the profit of a few. OPPOSITION LEADER DEFENDS CO-ORDINATION BOARD The Leader of the Opposition (the Rt. Hon. G. YV. Forbes) defended the Coordination Board and criticised the Government’s proposed system of transport licensing. When the Bill came into force, Mr Forbes continued, one man would dis-' place the present three men in each I of the licensing districts. Unless the | new appointees were men in whom tlie I public had confidence there would be | a great deal of discontent. The Minister was to be the final appeal authority, but ho was certain to stand by tlie j inau he had appointed. I can see in this Bill the process ' of strangulation as certainly as day follows night,” added Mr Forbes. “ProI vision is being made whereby the private motor scervices of this country will j be put out of operation. And we are ! handing over the sole control to a MinI ister who must he influenced by political considerations. No matter how much the Minister may desire to he fair and impartial he will find it difficult owing to the political pressure that will be exerted on him.” The Attorney-General, tlie Hon. 11. G. R. Mason: “Do you suggest that the Transport Co-ordination Board was not subject to political pressure?” Mr Forbes: “The board had nothing whatever to do with politics, and was composed of independent gentlemen with, a reputation for fairness.” BOUND TO BE MISTAKES “No matter what tribunal you have

there arc hound to he mistakes,” continued Mr Forbes, “but so long as they arc honest- mistakes we must put tip with them. No doubt the four men who arc to be appointed licensing authorities will lie of the right political colour and entirely in sympathy with the Minister, to whom appeals against their decisions will be taken. There should be an appeal authority at which no one can point the finger of criticism.”

Mr Forbes said that under the system of transport licensing which had existed in liie past few years the railway service had always had to stand on ihs own merits, when applications were 'icing heard. Gilder the Bill, however, the Minister had to decide all appeals, and as lie would certainly not have time to go into the details of every case that duty would devolve on '.he departmental head. It would be a case of one public servant making the decisions and another deciding the appeals. If the Minister thought that would satisfy the public he was wrong. Mr Semple: “I am prepared i.c tcKc the risk.” Mr Forbes: “When a man comes to the Minister with an appeal be will bo mot half-way with his running shoes.” The. Minister of Transport would have shrieked himself hoarse if anything like this Bill had been proposed by the previous Government,” Mr Forbes said. “Now he is sitting there complacently and saving: ‘Wait till I get this power.’ ” Mr Coates: “lie, will put the nips in.” “Tlie Bill contains the elements of grave injustice which will work to the detriment of motor transport interests. Mr Forbes continued. "Members of the Government have sneered at members of the Transport Co-ordination Board as two lawyers and a squatter. Those two lawyers and the squatter have had far more experience in motoring than the Minister or the head of his department, and I would far sooner trust an appeal to them.” SOUTH ISLAND MAIN TRUNK Mr E. R. Meaehen (Government, Wairau) who could not resist the opportunity of putting forward the case r or the completion of the South Island Main Trunk line. The whole future, of the transport system, lie declared, depended on the linking up of the gap in that railway He looked forward to the time when there would be a State train ferry service and goods could be transported from Auckland to the Bluff without interruption Political tribunals were a failure, declared Mr W. P. Endean (National, Parnell). He added that justice would not be done by the Minister being a tribunal. Mr E. L. Cullen (Government, Ilawkes Bay) said that 80 per cent, of the carriers in New Zealand were bankrupt as a result of the cut-throat competition that was taking place. “RANK DICTATORSHIP,” SAYS MR POLSON Mr W. J. Poison (National, Stratford) said the Bill was opposed to every principle for which tlie Government stood. “It comes from a party which hates Fascism, objects to dictators, and goes frantic at the very thought of despotism, yet to-day it is introducing a despotic measure in every sense of the word.” The Rev. Clyde Carr (Government, Tint a rit): “Dont’ lay it on too thickly.” Mr Poison: “When some people obtain power they become drunk with it. Here we have rank dictatorship.” Mr J. Thorn (Government, Thames): “You do look frightened.” Mr Poison said that if he were responsible for the Bill he would be scared to death. There would be thousands of appeals under the new law, and one wondered how the Minister would find time to deal with them. “I believe the Minister of Transport is convinced lie has a mission, and that lie is going to act fearlessly, hut I think lie is entirely bull-headed,” continued Mr Poison. Mr Speaker: "Order!” Mr Poison: “I withdraw that, and will say he is wrong-headed. I wouldn’t hurt the lion, gentleman’s feelings, because he never uses language of that sort himself ” Mr Speaker: “It is not a'question of hurting the lion, gentleman’s feelings, it is a question of using unparliamentary language.” Mr Poison said that the Minister was to be the filial authority in all appeals. The principle was contrary to every ideal of British constitutional practice, and would result in a state of chaos. No evidence would he allowed, and apparently tlie Minister was going to depend on inner inspiration to guide him. Mr J. Robertson (Government, Masterton), making his maiden speech, said that the system proposed in tlie Bill was much less objectionable than control by the Transport Co-ordination Board which savoured of political patronage. The control in the past, lie said, was in the direction of assisting private enterprise to kill publicly-own-ed transport services. The Minister moved the adjournment of the debate at 11.40 p.m. and the House adjourned until 10.30 am. today, when Mr Semple replied.to criticism and re-affirmed the principles oi the Bill which was read a second time.