TRANSPORT OF GOODS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22004, 10 January 1935, Page 8

TRANSPORT OF GOODS

The large number of applications for goods service licences disposed of by the No. 2 Licensing Authority yesterday is indicative of the increased attention being given to the freight side of road transport by the authorities. Until the past few months these bodies have not had much opportunity to consider the necessity for or the merits of many of the services being run. When the regulation of goods services began in 1933. most of those then in existence were allowed automatically to continue. It was laid down in the Order-in-Council by which licensing conditions were prescribed, that where a service was in existence when the Transport Licensing Act came into force in 1931. and had been operated continuously until the date of application, it was entitled to a licence, which should hold good for the year ended May 31, 1934. After that a renewal had to be sought, but would not be granted as of right. Those circumstances account largely for the high proportion of refusals and modifications in the renewal applications pronounced upon yesterday. In many instance's at the hearings the I? ail way Department and county authorities whose roads were traversed by the services appeared as opponents of the renewals. That explains what the judgment said about the position of the railways a« liable to be affected by competition, and about the strain on road maintenance revenue -if too many heavy goods services were allowed to run. In his statement the chairman said the authority was bound by the provisions of the Act, and had decided applications accordingly; he denied that it was solely concerned with the interests of the railways, declaring that it must consider the interests of licensed road services as well. That may be so, but there is still another interest, which should be paramount, the interest of the general public. It is affected, admittedly, by railway losses and by reading costs, but it also demands that the cheapest possible freight rates should he established. Uneconomic competition may be allowed to disappear without repret, but no monopolistic rights should be allowed any form of transport. On general principles it may be conceded that long distance freight transport belongs most naturally and advantageously to the railways, but granting this places on the department the responsibility of providing the cheapest and most efficient service possible. Similarly reasonable protection for approved road services from uneconomic competition is desirable but no such service shoidd be permitted to raise its charges wantonly under cover of such protection. These principles may lie commended to licensing authorities as they go about their duties.