THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1931. THE TRANSPORT BILL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21409, 10 August 1931, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1931. THE TRANSPORT BILL.

It was not to be expected that proposals of the nature of those contained in the Trahsport Licensing Bill would escape criticism. The Government ventures in this measure to proffer a solution of a problem which has partly baffled the resourcefulness of transport experts in most parts of the world, and certain of the provisions of the Bill are distinctly controversial. In a country in which the most farreaching transport service, the railways, is State-owned, any attempt on the part of the Government to adjust difficulties that have been intensified through the competition between railway transport and road services naturally invites searching examination. The Minister of Transport, who is also

the Minister of Railways, in a statement which is published this morning, makes a defence of the Transport Licensing Bill which deserves attention. The Associated Chambers of Commerce have subjected the Bill to severely unfavourable scrutiny, and it is presumably in reply to their criticism that Mr Veitch has now spoken. The conclusion which the Associated Chambers have reached is that the Bill- “ appears to be designed to protect the railways from the competition of road transport, and it is therefore a menace to economic progress in transport.” This assertion seems, however, to err on the side of exaggeration. It is proposed, as the Minister points out, that the licensing authorities shall not refuse applications for licenses in cases in which a service was being carried on on April 1 last, provided it is not in competition with a service licensed under the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act. Services commenced after the date mentioned are not to be summarily refused a license, the test of their eligibility being whether in the opinion ■of the licensing authorities they are “necessary or desirable in the public interest.”. This provision certainly lays itself open to comment on the ground of its vagueness, and the Associated Chambers have raised a point worthy of consideration when they emphasise that, because existing services are not to be refused licenses," the license does not carry with it the right of renewal, and that a renewal i might be refused because the service was considered to be unnecessary or undesirable. In this connection the proposal of the Bill which Would vest in the Minister of Transport the sole power to appoint the members of both the central and district licensing authority must be viewed with some misgiving beeaftse of the very great interest, which the State, as railway proprietor, has in the decisions of the authorities. While it is possible to point out weaknesses in the measure, it can hardly be contended that a regulation of transport is not required in New Zealand, as in other countries. The comparatively small outlay that is required to establish motor car services has led to the multiplication of means of conveyance throughout the Dominion. Not only are motor services competing with the railways, > often taking the “ cream ” of the traffic and leaving to the railways the non-payable part of the load, but they are competing with one another with results that are definitely unfortunate: The roads are suffering needlessly through the increase in traffic, and price-cutting, while it may temporarily benefit the public, is to be deprecated. The Transport Licensing Bill seems to represent a serious attempt'to eliminate costly competition which can, in the long run, benefit no one. If the purpose of the Bill were to enable the State to obtain a monopoly of transport in New Zealand it would be open to condemnation. If its purpose were even to eliminate all services which might tend to steal traffic from the railways it could not be hoped that it would gain public approval.