SURPRISE CRITIC

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22429, 27 May 1936, Page 15

SURPRISE CRITIC

TRANSPORT APPEALS

POWERS OF MINISTER LABOUR MEMBER'S OBJECTIONS PROVISION OF COURT URGED [BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON, Tuesday Something in the nature of a surprise was caused in the House of Representatives this afternoon when Mr. C. H. Burnett (Government — Tauranga) frankly criticised the provisions in tlie Transport Licensing Amendment Bill which constitute the Minister of Transport as the final Court of Appeal in all transport licensing cases. Mr. Burnett's criticism of the appeal provisions in the bill was made during the third reading debate, and Opposition members took advantage of the occasion to make a further attack on this principle in the Government's legislation. " Generally, 1 support the bill, but 1 would have preferred to see it providing for some right of appeal other than to the Minister himself," said Mr. Burnett. " I think the Minister would have been well advised if he had had an Appeal Court or appeal tribunal of some sort to which he could have referred the cases which will arise over decisions of the authorities. Some Protection Advisable

" There should be some Court to which appellants are entitled to go and

give evidence on their cases, but under

this bill the Minister does not need to hear any evidence at all if he wishes. Under all our appeal legislation in British law there is the right to a rehearing, but the Minister, under this bill, can also refuse that right. I am sure the Minister in control of transport at present will give every necessary consideration tc appeals, but I think there should be some protection in the bill for cases which might arise in the future.

"We must see that people with large sums invested in these services have some protection for their interests. I do not care how well-intentioned the Minister may be, it is always possible that some feeling might exist which would influence a position in the interests of the State. The Minister would have been wise to have sheltered him-

self behind some appellant body which would have removed him from the influence of such controversial discussion."

Advantages Realised

Mr. Burnett said he realised that the person applying could go straight to the Minister and have his business dealt with quickly and that for the sake of expediency the Minister was the best person to approach. That had been realised in Britain.

" I listened with a good deal of amazement to the speech by the member for Tauranga," said Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Opposition—Waitomo). It was a pity, he added, that Mr. Burnett, had waited for the third reading, when he had every chance on the second reading or during the Committee stage to voice his opinion on the question of appeal. Mr. Burnett was quite right when he said the Minister was making a mistake in making no provision for an appeal from his decisions. Probably a good many members of the Government held the same view, but were not game to get up on their feet and say so, added Mr. Broadfoot. Contrary to English Precedent

Mr. W. P. Endean (Opposition— Parnell) said that in England a member of Parliament was not allowed to act on an appeal tribunal such as Mr. Burnett had suggested, and it could therefore be seen that it was contrary to precedent to have a Minister actually the sole authority of appeal. The bill in that respect struck at a vital principle i of British justice. | Mr. W. T. Anderton (Government—- : Eden) said members of the Opposition had not been able to suggest any authority which might bo able to exercise the final control over transport better than the Minister of Transport, who was elected by the people. In his opinion the legislation brought down by the Minister would function so successfully that the control of traffic in New Zealand would be better than anywhere else in the world. "Rocked the Government Boat" The Ht. Hon. J. G. Coates (Opposition—Kaipara) said the speech by the member for Tauranga had rocked the Government boat and rocked it badly. Mr. A. S. Richards (Government — Roskill): Not a ripple. Mr. Burnett, added Mr. Coates, had had all the opportunities to support thd" principles he now advocated, but he had not voted for one of them. Apparently Mr. Burnett had received protests from his electorate concerning the powers the Minister was taking under the bill, but ho could not expect to escape criticism in view of the mild protest lie had made. His speech bad "got clean under the skin of the Minister of Transport and made hjm writhe."