JUSTICE WANTED

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

JUSTICE WANTED

RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL

VIEWS OF MR. COATES

REPLY TO RECENT ATTACK [BY TELEGRAPH SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON, Tuesday The removal by legislation of the right of any individual to have his case heard by the Courts was strongly criticised by the lit. Hon. J. G. Coates (Opposition Kaipara) during the Transport Bill debate in the House of Representatives to-day. He said it was the first time in this country that the people had been denied the right to approach the Courts. The Opposition was opposed to any such interference with the individual.

The Minister of Transport in England did not have the final decision in his hands as had been stated by the Minister, Mr. Coates said, and a person there had the right of appeal to the Courts of the land. The principle contained in the bill was one that no country would long tolerate. The Minister had constituted himself superior to all the Courts, but before long the Minister would be glad to appoint magis trates or Judges to hear appeals in order to give a semblance of fair play. The March ol Progress The clause in question had been taken from the Queensland Act, but transport in New Zealand was 100 per cent bettor than in Queensland. Such a principle was contrary entirely to the principles of British justice. No attempt, continued Mr. Coates, had been made by the Minister of Railways, Hon. D. G. Sullivan, to contradict his

statement that even if all the goods and passengers now carried on the roads were to go to the railways the latter could not pay. Mr. Sullivan: What is all the shouting about?

Mr. Ooates said that Mr. Sullivan had

not stood up to defend the railways. The Minister of Railways was superimposed on the Minister of Transport as far as services were concerned. It was impossible to prevent the relentless

march of progress in transport. " 1 cannot deal with all the charges made by the Minister of Transport," added Mr. Coates. "It was a vicious and unwarranted attack."

The S]K?aker called Mr. Coates to order and requested the withdrawal of the word vicious.

"Unwarranted and Bitter"

Mr. Coates: Well, 1 shall say an unwarranted and bitter attack couched in the most exaggerated terms. Much as the Minister of Transport might complain concerning recommendations for railway improvements, said Mr. Coates, it was extraordinary that such a policy was being given effect to bit by bit. The recommendations followed very closely those of the FayHaven Commission. The railway was still the premier service, hut only for long distance traffic and heavy merchandise. The Minister of Transport had made several charges concerning bus services and had tried to make the country believe that £54,000 was paid for junk That was incorrect.

Mr. Semple: I said much of it was junk. Mr. Coates said that many of the buses ran for some years after they were purchased. The Leader of the Opposition, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, said there were many elements in the bill likely to cause much dissatisfaction in the future. The Opposition believed there was room for private enterprise and any criticism it had directed at the Government was aimed at safeguarding the rights of those who in good faith had invested their money in transport services. Even-handed Justice Desired If it had not been for private enterprise the public would not be enjoying the service it enjoyed to-day, added Mr. Forbes. Private enterprise should not be stifled, nor should any rights be taken away without full knowledge of what was being done. The Opposition desired to see even-handed justice. The Attorney-General, Hon. H. G. H. Mason, said the law recognised that appeals in general favoured the man with the longest purse and that better justice was not necessarily secured by multiplying the rights of appeal. The intention of the bili was to ensure that the decisions of the Minister were not set aside on formal ground and to secure administration of justice against frivolous attacks.