BUSES VERSUS TRAMS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3782, 7 September 1926, Page 56

BUSES VERSUS TRAMS.

LABOUR POINT OF VIEW

The Trades Hall was well filled on Sunday night to listen to an address by Mr J. Hutchison, an ex-Wellingtpn city councillor, the subject being “Private Buses versus Municipal Tramways.” Mr A. J. Morrison presided. Mr Hutchison prefaced his remarks by stating that the question of private-owned omnibuses competing against municipally controlled electric tiams was probably the most contentious measure, with the exception of the licensing question, to come before Parliament this session. Such a position had arisen as the result of the increased motor transit, and foi the safety of human life the Government had deemed it necessary *o draft a set of governing regulations. In using the channel of the Order-in-Council which the speaker characterised as political autocracy, the Government clashed with private enterprise, and the outcome was that a Parliamentary Committee was set up to hear evidence on the whole question, and the report of this committee snowed that the previously drafted regulations had been whittled down considerably. To a layman it appeared that the legal fraternity would in the near future rsap a rich harvest in interpreting certain clauses. The Government had displayed a great lack of foresight in not grappling with the question years ago. The lessons to be Darned from other countries had not been heeded. Consequently private enterprise had become deeply rooted in our transport system, and resented strongly any Government interference. Motor transport regulations should have been framed years ago. Under the Public Works Act the Government controlled the municipal electric tramways, and it should be obvious that buses must also submit to similar regulations. Ths safety of the public demanded it. Dealing with the first regulations that the Government proposed to give effect to, Mr Hutchison stated that outside the harsh insurance clause, the one that made private enterprise arise from its financial slumbers, was that which made it mandatory that where private buses were using the same route as electric trams, the former had to charge 2d extra. It could logically I e reasoned, that if it were right to compel the private competitor to charge more than that charged by municipalities, it would be equally right that all service cars in competition with our railways should be obliged to charge a higher fare than that charged for train travelling. This clause was obnoxious, and its removal would have saved the life of private enterprise, for a tim9 at least.. Proceeding, the speaker alleged that man 7 of the municipalities had hastened the advent of privatoly-own9d buses by their failure to supply adequate transport facilities. Many tramway departments were content if they showed a profit, paying little attention to the source of such profit Private enterprise by entering into competition compelled the rouncipalities to give a more efficient and up-to-date service than had hitherto been supplied. Local bodies had rested upon their monopoly far too long. The Labour Party stood strongly for the principle that if efficient service were to bs obtained tho workers engaged in that in* duatiy should have representation on the Board of Control. It should be realised that the brains of industry wore not all on the one side. Further, modern transit, whether private or municipal, opened up new areas <f property, and the Labour Party contended that if such services increased the land value of a particular locality, it was only right that the owners of that land should pay for the benefits derived by the inauguration of auch services. In conclusion, Mr Hutchison said that ths Labour Party stood for all undertakings being municipally controlled. He believed that regulations must be framed to cover privatelyogrned buses, but such regulations must ts based in fairness, equity, and sanity. After ssvoral questions had been answered, the meeting terminated with a vote of thanks to ths speaker.