Transport Amendment Bill

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 23 May 1936, Page 8

Transport Amendment Bill

SECOND READING DEBATE HON. R. SEMPLE REPLIES TO CRITICISM STRONG OPPOSITION TO CERTAIN CLAUSES (From The “Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter) _ WELLINGTON, This Day. Contending that the arguments of the Opposition had been purely superficial, the Minister of Transport (the Hon. R. Semple), in replying to the second reading debate on the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill in the House ■ of Representatives yesterday, confined his remarks largely to a critical examination of the record of his predecessor, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, whom he described as a “political | jack-in-the-box. Urgency was taken for the passage of the measure.

Mr Semple declared that the criticism of the Opposition members had pot touched the kernel of the subject. The fundamental principle embodied in the Bill was to establish a better form of transport control and coordination in the Dominion. The principal argument of the Opposition had been against the idea of the Minister being the filial appeal authority. He had been called a Hitler, a socialistic dictator, a synthetic Caesar. “It was suggested by Mr Coates that I would have to submit to the dictatorship of the Minister of Railways,” said Mr Semple, “and that he would lead me by the nose. I have never been led by the nose yet, and if the Minister wants to try the experiment I advise him to do so and see how far he will get. (Laughter.) lam not going to be led by the nose—by the Minister or anyone else.” He said that the idea of the Minister as an appeal authority was taken from the English Act. In England the Minister had 45,000 passenger vehicles under his control. In New Zealand the Minister would have 1700 passenger and -3000 goods vehicles. Surely the Minister here could measure up to a task that was small compared with the gigantic task of the Minister at Home. It was lack of control that had put New Zealand transport in its present state. Mr Semple said that in 1027 Mr Coates had emphasised the need of placing transport under a Minister of Transport in order that the system should be controlled efficiently, but now that that very principle was embodied in the ' Bill before the House, Mr Coates said he was opposed to it. lock, stock ■■and barrel. “What a political jack-in-the-box; what a somersault!” remarked Mr Semple amidst laughter. Later Mr Coates set lip a Co-ordination Board, and took from this House all vestige of control. The board had the power to do just what it pleased with the transport system. “If he thinks that that kind of stuff is going to go down with the thinking public, he is making a great big mistake,” said Mr Semple. ■Mr Coates: We’ll see.

that if wo do it, it will be a manifestation of Socialism. Some dreadful pictures were painted.” Mr Semple referred to the purchase by the previous Government of the Hutt Road bus services. “Mr Coates said that the vendor should be given his own price, and that price ultimate-

Mr Semple: We’ll see, all right. They just missed you with the first barrel; they will get you with the second. “UNBALANCED POLICY” Mr Semple went oil to attack the “stupid and unbalanced policy” of the previous Minister. “If I were responsible for it I would'be inclined to hang my head in shame,” he declared. “He said we were going to take over all the privately-owned bus services, and

ly amounted to £54,000,” he said. “ flic major portion of .that purchase was junk, and the price paid set the pricepace for the future. And here is the Rt. Hon. gentleman warning this House to be business-like and careful! (Laughter). The Hon. D. G. Sullivan (Minister of Railways): He paid the vendors’ price? Mr Semple: The instructions in the middle of the negotiations were that the vendors’ price had to be paid, and it was paid. It is scandalous. Mr Coates: Make a charge.

Mr Semple: 1 am making a charge. The Rt. Hon. gentleman spent £54,000 iii buying junk. 1 suppose he calls that sound business—by men of enterprise and vision seriously looking after the public welfare! (Laughter.) —And we are. getting advice from him! I welcome advice, but when it is mingled with destructive talk of wreck and ruin it is time we put the searchlight on the gentleman who is giving it. The bogy has been put up that this i.s pure unadulterated Socialism, that I am a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Ceasar. — (Laughter.) —Ft is a pity Caesar did not arrive here a few years ago. .Mr \V. J. Poison (National, Stratford) : He is here new. Mr Semple continued his attack on the previous Minister’s record, referring particularly to the unfinished lines. There was the Palmerston North deviation, on which £250,000 was spent, and Mr Coates decided not to go on with it. The sum of £37,000 was spent on the Rotorua-Taupo railway—the money might just as well have been ( thrown into the ocean or sent to the destructor. “Then there was the balloon loop—this is a eraekerjack,'’ continued ilr Semple. “It was to cost £25,030. It hag cost £150,000.” i Mr Coates: Don’t talk nonsence. j Mr Semple: Those are the figures I have here. I (Mr J. Thorn (Government, Thames): { Where is this loop ? j Mr Semple: In the Rt. Hon. niem- ' ber’s constituency. In putting in that , balloon loop lie nearly looped the loop • on himself. “Then there are the Middleton yards at Christchurch,’’ continued Mr Semple. “They cost £127,000 and are not. worth twopence.” , Mr Coates: Jon are exaggerating.

Mr Semple: I am not exaggerating. Here—— Mr Coates: It is unadultered exaggeration, and not a tittle of fact in it. Mr Semple: There is not one scrap of exaggeration. These figures I have obtained from the records of the Public .Works Department. There is no semblance of exaggeration. I could go on to deal with other schemes in which tens of thousands of pounds have been wilfully and criminally wasted. REMARK WITHDRAWN Air Speaker-, Order, order, You are suggesting a. very serious, charge against the Government and a member of the Government, and 1 must ask you to withdraw the word.

Mr Semple: Very well, sir, I will withdraw it. But 1 say that this money was wasted without any real consideration or any real knowledge. He charged Mr Coates with scaremongei'ing and with trying to leave an impression in the public mind that this country was to-day under the control of a Government that would ultimately bring New Zealand to the verge of ruin, .

The, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbe s (Leader of the Opposition): It will. Mr Semple: If this Government has no better a record of service than the previous Government it will get what it will deserve—dismissal from public office. The Prime Minister is determined to build this country, and make it a safer and sounder place, so that the people may have that measure of security and comfort to which _ they are entitled. Mr Coates has to create fear in the public mind. The public are not absentminded. They remember the chance Mr Coates had when he was a leader of the Coalition. He lias put on record a history of miserable failures. 'The House divided on the motion for the second reading, which was carried by 50 to 16. The division list was as follows For the Bill (50): Anderton, Armstrong, Barnes, Barrell, C. H. Burnett, Campbell, Carr, Christie, Coleman, Coulter, Culien, Denham, Fraser, Herring, Hodgens, Howard, Hultquist, Hunter, Jones, Jordan. Langst.one, Lowry, Lyon, McCombs, McDougall, McMillan, Martin. Mason, Meachen, Moncur, Munro, Nash. Neilson, Nordineyer, O’Brien, Petrie, Parry, Richards, Roberts Robertson, Savage. Schramm, Semple, Sexton, Sullivan. Thorn, Tinkatene, Webb, Wilson, Williams. Against the Bill (16): Broad foot, 1. D. Burnett. Coates, Cobbe, Endean, Forbes, Hamilton, Hargest. Jlenare, Holland, Ngata, Poison, Smith, Roy, Wilkinson, Weight. ONE-MAN CONTROL When the Bill was committed Mr W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo) opened the discussion cm the short title. He said it was wrong in principle and unsound in practice to allow one-man authorities to handle the whole of the transport business of the Dominion. Districts were limited to four as against nine at present, and while it was sound to reduce the number of districts he was of opinion that the work of the new districts was beyond the capacity of one man. It was also unsound to allow the Minister to liave the sole right of appeal. Departmental officers would be in control of districts and naturally they would obtain the Minister’s viewpoint on any question before making a move. It reduced the whole position to an absurdity. There should be a tribunal of three to handle the whole situation. Transport covered a wide, field and local knowledge was an important factor. if a man did not have knowledge of a. district and understand its growling requirements injustice could be done.

WHAT IS DEMOCRACY ? Mr J. liargest (National, A warn a) said the Bill violated every principle of democracy. The Minister of Lands (the Hon. !'. Langstone): Please explain democracy. Air Hargest; 1 win refer you to Abraham Lincoln. No doubt tiie honourable gentleman lies read it many times. Continuing, he said the Minister was given despotic power to handle cverytning. Surely that was not the spirit of democracy. Referring to the East Coast railway, lie said the Minister had power to. revoke licences and an injury might be done to pioneer operators, both on the road and ill the air. Why should such arbitrary authority be delegated to the Minister? He had greater .'authority than the Supreme Court. The law allowed an appellant to go to the Privy Council but no operator could go further than the Minister of Transport, who would be "a great poobab.’ He would be hoist with his own petard and in eighteen months his life would be a misery to him:

The Minister of Transport said that he intended to bring down an amendment which would place the Auckland Transport Board under the provisions of the Bill. From remarks passed it bad been assumed that public servantswould be appointed as the licensing authorities. He wondered where the information came from. ■ The Leader of the Opposition : If they are full-time men they will be public servants. ■ Mr Broadfoot: That is what I meant. The Minister said it might not be necessary to take men out of the Public Service.’ What lie aimed at was to get the best, men possible to carry out the duties of such responsible positions. “We will get them wherever we can,” he said. Those appointed would need to have courage and some idea of transport, together with a knowledge of the

law of evidence.' They must also have a decent manner of approach. Mr Broadfoot: Pretty good fellows. The Minister said they would be men of strong character. It would not do to have weak men. They would have to make decisions which they could stand by. MINISTER’S POWERS In respect to the powers given the Minister to review and revoke licences, Mr Semple said it was not- a new principle. i’liere was no idea of injuring anybody. What was proposed was adjustment to make the transport system more efficient.

•Mr W. J. Poison (National, Stratford) said that the Prime Minister had stated that he had been treated unfairly by the Press of New Zealand and yet the Minister of Transport quoted the newspapers as supporting him. He referred to what had happened in Queensland, where the Transport Board had driven the transport off tile roads and gave railways a free hand. He feared that what had happened to Queensland would be repeated in New Zealand. Mr Coateg said tire Minister of Transport had not given a great deal of information in his second reading speech. He lin’d followed the usual tactics of putting up a smoke screen to hide the real purpose of the Bill. He defended the actions of the past Government, which did nothing without proper investigation by either the Railways Department or a Commission. There was nothing in the Bill to conserve public safety.' That was in another Bill. There were’ three ways of doing it. First, by education; second, by proper supervision and licensing drivers; and third, by regular inspection of machines. The relentless march of progress could not Jio interfered with, but it was being interfered with in the Bill. The Minister of Transport should have no other job. He would have sufficient to do with transport. He declared the Bill to be reactionary. “WRONG FOCUS” The Minister of Railways (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan) said that Mr Coates seemed to be getting the whole matter into wrong focus. The suggestion that there was going to be war between the railways and the road operators was entirely astray, but there was a very real need for co-ordination. The Government could not stand if it did not give the public services that were essential. There was no intention of eliminating private services that were rendering a useful and necessary service to the people. Co-ordination was going to be the rule. He quoted figures in support of Mr Semple’s statement that the past Governments had bought road services at the venders’ prices. The Leader of the Opposition said that tlic Minister of Transport, in taking the position of final, court of appeal in his desire to be “the poobali,” was taking something that would not meet with the approval of the people. Mr F. W. Schramm (Government, Auckland East) said lie could guarantee that tlie Minister of Transport would give impartial decisions. Mr Poison: Would the country accept your guarantee? Mr Schramm: It would never accept yours. You are the biggest political bluff this country has ever seen. Mr Schramm reminded Mr Coates that when the sales tax was introduced he, as Minister of Finance, was given the final say in all appeals, and thousands of pounds might be at stake. Yet hs objected to the Minister of Transport- dealing with appeals. The committee stage of the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill was completed in the House of Representatives' yesterday.

COMMITTEE STAGE COMPLETED The short title—the first clause —was carried at 3.45. p.m. on the voices. I At clause three, which provides that district licensing authorities may coti- | sist of one person, Air W. J. Poison ' (National, Stratford) moved an amendment providing that the number of ‘ members constituting a licensing I authority shall not lie. reduced until all applications for renewal of .services during the present calendar year of existing passenger service licenses have been disposed of. On division this was defeated by 4'J votes to 15. Air W. d. Broadfoot (National, \Yaitomo) moved a further amendment to the clause providing for licensing authorities recording reasons for their decisions. Tlic Alinister said lie lmd no objection to the amendment which was inserted on the voices.

The Rt. lion. J. G. Coates (National, Kaipara) moved an amendment with the object of providing that a true account of the evidence given in proceedings before a licensing authority should be kept, and the Alinister agreed to consider it with a view to inserting it in the Legislative Council. Without discussion, the House divided on the clause providing-for the abolition of the Transport Co-ordination Board, and the clause was retained by 50 votes to 15. Air W. P. Endcan (National, Parnell; moved an amendment to provide that appeals from the decisions of licensing authorities should be made to a tribunal of three men experienced in transport administration, and this was lost on the voices. A further amendment by Mr Endean that there should be the right of appeal to a Supreme Court judge was defeated by 50 to 15. Strong objection was taken by Opposition members to clause 13, which stipulates that the proceedings of the Minister are not to be questioned for want of form, or appealed against. MINISTER’S POSITION IMPREGNABLE Mr Coates said he did not know of any infernal machine that would blow the Alinister out of this dugout. “No one can get at him,” he declared. “His word is law, and no one can question it. It is coming to this: Please, sir, may I ask a question. I am wondering whether the Alinister himself will be able to get out of it. Ilis position is impregnable, with its barbed wire, gas and liquid fire and all that sort of thing. The Prime Alinister (the Rt. Hon. AI. J. Savage): He lias not a monopoly of gas. (Laughter). Air Broadfoot: This is not poison gas. Air Broadfoot said he was very much aghast at the effect this clause would have. “It is the Ilindenburg line of the transport system,” lie declared. The Alinister is assuming a judicial work, and the next thing will be that Alagistrates will have padded rooms; and then Judges will want them.”

Mr Forbes said the Minister had had no training or experience for this responsibility, and it was not in accord with his protestations when he was a member of the Opposition. “We know him only in the House and as a man who aeps on impulse.” DECISION BASED ON EVIDENCE The Minister said lie wanted to dispel the doubt expressed by the Opposition that he would be able to give a decision that would meet with the general approval of the people directly affected. “We have to have finality,” he stated. “We cannot have endless litigation. That is what we have had in the past—feed for the legal profession. It does not take much of a loophole for lawyers to get in and litigation to take place. The decision is hung up and the transport industry generally suffers. The meaning of the clause is that the Minister gives a decision based on evidence. If he is not satisfied with the evidence he can appoint an examiner to examine the facts and search for more. He is not going to appoint a fool to do that. It is a step in advance of the power conferred on the board before.”

Mr Poison said lie was disappointed with the Minister’s explanation. Here was a new principle to be applied to Hew Zealand law, brought in by the Hon. Dictator for Wellington East The Opposition pressed for a division, which resulted in 51 for and 1G against the clause.

The last clause was passed at 5.45 p.m., after the Minister had assured -Mr Coates that it was the Government’s intention to take complete control of the licensing of aircraft, to see that there were no companies operating with limited capital, and generally to ensure that the service was made 100 per cent. safe. The House adjourned until next Tuesday, and on the suggestion of the Prime Minister the third reading of the Bill was postponed until then.