THE BUS REGULATIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19386, 22 July 1926, Page 10

THE BUS REGULATIONS.

EVIDENCE BEFORE INQUIRY. PETITION TO PARLIAMENT. CASE FOR THE PROPRIETORS. WELLINGTON OWNERS' VIEWS. [Bl~ TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, Wednesday. The select committee of the House of Representatives set up to consider the motor-omnibus regulations held its first public meeting to-day for the purpose of hearing evidence for and against the petitions recently presented to Parliament. Mr. E. P. Lee, the chairman of the committee, presided, and the following menii. bers were present Hon. K. S. Williams, Messrs. V. H. Potter, M. J. Savage, P. Frnser, C. E. Macmillan, G. W. Forbes, J. Dickson, T* K. Sidey, E. J. Howard, H. L. Tapley and H. Holland. The chairman apologised for the absence of the Primo Minister on account of indisposition. Over 30 persons from nil parts of the Dominion attended the sitting. Auckland was very fully represented, among those present being Messrs. A. Thompson and T. Bioodworth (Auckland City Council), A. H. Johnstone (solicitor to the council), H. Morgan (Auckland city tramways management), T. Lamont (Mayor of Devonport), S. (town clerk of Mount Eden), G. Gr6y Campbell and F.. C. Martin (Auckland Omnibus Proprietors' Association), J. Kerr (manager Takapuna Tramways and Ferry Company), J. F. Cousins (Auckland Motor Traders' Association), L. Adams (Auckland Garage Proprietors' Association), G. B. Beaver (Auckland Coachbuilders' Association) and A. M. Gould (counsel for Mr. Smith, proprietor of the Devonport-Milford motorbus services).

The chairman stated he had received an inquiry from the Takapuna Borough Council asking when evidence would be heard and had replied that the committee was already sitting. Representatives of motor-bus and tramway interests were present from Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, Wanganui, Palmerston North and Napier and the New Zealand Motor Traders' Association was also represented. Owners Fear a Monopoly. Mr. W. G. Macdonald presented the case on behalf of the Wellington MotorBus Proprietors. The bus proprietors throughout New Zealand had general objection to the regulations. It was explained that the regulations applied to the four main cities and those towns where there were municipal transport enterprises. Witness said that if the regulations were not general, some good reason should be given why they should apply to some centres only. The Board of Trade Act had not been designed to give the Government power to issue regulations of such a description. If the purpose of the regulations was the control of traffic the bus proprietors would have been ready, and were ready now, to assist in drafting the regulations. He thought the time was ripe for regulations controlling the whole system of transport in New Zealand. It was felt that the regulations had been conceived with the sinister design of putting the bus people out of business. Witness said there were • three clauses in the regulations as originally published that would constitute a municipal monopoly of transport. One was that relating to the licensing authority under the regulations. The licensing authority would be quite within its rights in refusing a license unless the council came to the conclusion that their own trams were not giving the desired service. As long as clause 3 remained their industry would be in a precarious position,~as the effect of clause 3 was to hand their business over to their competitors. He had not lost sight of the fact that there had been amendments, but he still thought the effect would be to put them out of business, and that without competition. Extra Twopence Fare. Witness then dealt with the. provision for an extra fare of 2d. If that had been put into effect it would have put him off the roads, but that provision had never beeu carried out. Since then the clause dealing with the 2d fare had been amended and now it was left to the licensing authority to say whether the extra fare should be imposed or not. The bus proprietors were not satisfied with the regulations even since they had been altered. He did not think that clause 10 (dealing with fares to be charged), even as amended, had anything to do with the control of traffic. Mr. Macdonald complained of the unreasonableness of the regulation regarding insurance, although the motor-bus proprietors did not object to provision being nade for insurance. Although it was unreasonable the insurance clause would not have the effect, of putting the proprietors out of business. The regulations meant that his company, the Wellington and Suburban Bus Company, would have to carry a cover of over £250,000. Mr. Macmillan: Do you think that relief would be granted if a licensing authority had the right to grant a license for a longer term than one year 1 Mr. Macdonald: Yes, I think they should have power to grant a license for a period of five years. Witness said they would have had no objection: to the regulations if there had been a complete judicial inquiry. Traffic at Rush Hours. Mr. Fiaser: What is the value of your plant at present ? Mr. Macdonald thought the buses would be worth about £750 each. Discussing the question of the purchase by the City Council of his company's buses, witness said he had undertaken to allow the City. Council to secure a full statement of the company's financial posi* tion, provided the Mayor would state that he would recommend the council to purchase the company's fleet. Witness said his company was paying and he was prepared to submit a statement showing that if the committee desired it. He admitted that the buses could not cope with the rush hours unless they were given a monopoly. He estimated that 500 buses would be required in order to carry out the work efficiently. Witness said the buses had not prejudicially affected the tramway systems in New Zealand. Mr. Dickson: Do you mean to sav the buses have not affected the Auckland trams ? Witness: I say they have not. Replying to Mr. Forbes, witness said the general view of the bus proprietors was that if the regulations were not imposed they would agree not to "cut" the tram fares. _ Personally he did not agree with that view. Mr. Macdonld said his petition was supported by 14,000 or 15,000 people and he would like an opportunity to call evidence expressing the views of the public. The committee adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning, when consideration will be given to an Auckland petition.