CONTROL OF BUSES

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 17133, 8 September 1926, Page 2

CONTROL OF BUSES

TliE -XI'VY LEGISLATION

MEMBERS AT TARIAKCI

SOME CONTROVERSIAL ASPECTS

(Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night. _ In the House tonight the Hon. J. C. Rolleston (for the Prime Minister) moved the second reading of the .Motor Omnibus Traffic BiU. He said that it had been established that the tramway system was the dieapesl form of transit in citv areas and should be proI ud from serious monetary Joss following on competition by buses. " Ihe only way to meet the position was to give municipalities complete control oi transport, provided they undertook to see that even' traffic facility required was provided and, that motor bu-3 owners who had entered into Jawfni business were not prejudiciallv affected. From November 1. 1926. no bus would he permitted to run in a municipal area eicepi under a license issued by the proper authority, who would fix rentes and hues. The only difference between (he Bill and the committee's | recommendations was that- scfme things which tin- committee suggested should fee dealt with bv regulations had been placed in the Bill. The Minister .thought it advisable to -have as ranch ae possible enacted. Regarding the that there should be a metropolitan board of control for Auckland the Minister said that was a matter that should be put forward by the districts interested, not by Parliament. The problem of transport was a difficult one. but he thought the Bill would be accepted as furnishing a reasonable solution. , Mr. H I-'.. Holland. Leader ot the Opposition, gave general support tn the Bill. Trams, undoubtedly, were the . best means for dealing with massed traffic: and it was not right that, pri-vately-owned buses should enter into destructive competition with a publiclyowned tram service. Tn smaller centres or in larger centres away from areas served by trams, buses furnished a useful means of transport. A local body. however, if freed from private competition, should be undqr obligation to provide adequate transport facilities for the people. GOVEKSM ENT M EMBER'S PROTEST. Mr. Harris protested against this Bill—which. he said. prejudicially affected the livelihood of thousands of people—being rushed through at this late stage. The committee had recommended that the petition of 100.000 people against the proposals in the Bill • should be favorably received by the Government,' Yet they had this Bill htfore the House now. a, Socialistic measure that was going to work untold harm to many people who bad put their money into the bus industry. The Bill was creating a monopoly to municipalities, or private tramway concerns, so that they might charge any fares they like. Mr. Harris expressed doubt whether the tramwajyg provided the cheapest and most effective transport service. That certainly was not ihe case in his district. ' The Bill did nothing to protect the public in the way of f-eeing that adequate transport facilities were provided. He declared that, under' the Bill, special preference was given by the Government to the Takap'nna Tramway and Ferry Co. by varying the condition under which the company held its operating rights. . The Bill would make this company a present cf £IOO,CDQ. and ruin the compel- / ing bus system that had rendered good and efficient service. He intended to * move in committee several amendments that would render the measure at any rate innocuous till the people had the opportunity to* voice their desires at the next municipal election. •'THE BILL A DISGRACE." j Mr. D. 0. Sullivan supported the Bill generally, tut hoped justice would bo dene to the people who had been rendering services to the public, but -who would be prejudiced by the Bill. Sir Jfohn Luke refuted the suggestion that the Wellington tramways' adoption of the universal long-distance fare had been dictated by fear of bus compeition. This was incorrect, because in the city the trams, since their inception, had put £337,000 into extension.-) out of earn-" ings, and the. nett profit last year was £12.700. He urged that the'bus proprietors should not be put out of business without compensation, as they had rendered services. Mr. J. McCbmbs said that in the case of Christ church, for instance, the, tramways had done a great deal to create residential areas around the city. Mr. McConibs added that the Bill, if passed, would secure to the people the monopoly embraced in public ownership of the tramway services. If the services were not satisfactorily conducted the people had the remedy in their own hands*. Mr. V. If. Potter contended that the whole of the committee's recommendations should have b*:en adopted in tile Bill. It was described by the Minister as an important Bill, yet the people concerned in the operation of the Act were. completely disregarded, as they had no chance of protesting against the Bill's provisions. The Bill should, in all fairness he. postponed tili next session, as there was no real urgency for its" passage. The Bill was a disgrace and would bo a disgrace if brought in by the Labor party, which was saying a good deal. PROPOSAL TOO HURRIED. Sir Joseph Ward said he was glad the Government had introduced the Bill to supersede the regulations which had been raised by Order-in-Council. Still, iie regretted the Bill had not been before the people long enough to enable the public to become acquainted with it. There were some things in the Rill he did ndi like. To make the owners of the tramways the licensing authority was not fair.to the bus owners, because they would be bound to favor the tramways. There ought !o he an independent" licensing authority. The appointment of an appeal board did not help matters very much, nor did he think it a fair business proposition that bus owners sellin? their vehicles to a city council should not be able to obtain scino goodwill, because the city council wks going to get the benefit of the business they had created. It wa.s not fair to fix a system which would ruin one set of people to benefit even a | city council. Tho motor bus had come to stay, and there ought to be some Arrangement which would be fair to both ptu ties. Mr. E. P. Lee said the conditions which the committee that considered the Bill desired to see brought about were those pertaining in Dunedin. where the city owned its tramways and its buses. What they wanted to avoid was buses competing against buses and against tramways. After midnight the debate was car. ried on by Messrs. Tapley, Armstrong, Smith. Forsyth, and Atmoic. and the second leading was agreed to at 1.55 s