STATE SERVICES

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19025, 27 May 1936, Page 9

STATE SERVICES

POLICY OF GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT LEGISLATION NEW MEASURE PASSIM) CRITICISM AND REPLY O’er Press Association.) WELLINGTON, lasi night. On the third reading of the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill in the lloiisc ol Representatives, Mr. -L llargest (Nat.. Awarua) said the Opposition was able to secure a few amendments, and the bill had been materially impro vd. hut there were still clauses which were pernicious to a degree. The bill was opposed t<> everything that had made op .New Zealand'’ s character in the last hundred years.

Mr. W. T. Anderloit (Labour. Eden) said there was nothing in the Dominion that needed cooperation more than the transport industry. Me considered that a single individual licensing authority could settle matters better Mian the tribunals as constituted in the past. Mr. W. P. E.ruleaii (Nat., Parnell) said the bill so far as the appeal provision went, struck at the vital principle of British justice. .Mr. J. G. Barclay (Labour. Marsdeu) referred to the cut-throat competition existing between taxi proprietors who were forced to work very long hours, anil said that co-ordination among taxi proprietors was the proper course to adopt. The lit. Hon. J. G. Coates (Nat., Iva.ipara) asked why the Opposition should sit down calmly and have Australian legislation imposed upon New Zealand. He rele.rrctl to the "complete dictatorial powers taken by the .Minister. He said that the .Minister placed himself superior to all the courts ot the land, and llie members ol the Government party were responsible with the .Minister for breaking down the principle of justice that had caused a conlliet in lln- past, lie predicted that bcluiv long (lie .Minister would appoint judges of the Supreme ('unit and magistrates to give a semblance of fair play to the measure, that appeal provision was taken I rom the Queensland Act. but did anybody suggest that conditions in New Zealand were similar to those in Queensland. Ihe hill was a retrograde step, and a deparlure from the principle of llrilish justice and freedom, which lie believed was the most precious tiling to conserve. RpOQ.M FOR PRIVATE- ENTHRI’IMSE The lion. D. G. Sullivan said that Mr. Coates’ speech was a complete misrepresentation of (he clause dealing with appeals. He claimed that the Government had every right to protect a license that it had purchased. It was the peoples money that was involved, and he wanted security for the people’s assets.

The lit. Hon. G. W, Forbes said the Opposition had endeavoured to protect Lite rights of the public and the interests of men wiio were running tho private services of the Dominion, the whole policy of the Government was to have State services.

.Mr. Sullivan: 1 will accept that. Mr. Forbes said the Opposition thought there was room for private enterprise, and it. was the duty of the Opposition to see that the lights of private services could not be taken away without a lull knowledge of what was being done, lie held that there should lie even-handed justice, and that private enterprise should not he stalled, as that was stifling progress, and the proper development o! the Transport Bill had the elements ot causing a, great deal ot dissatisfaction in the future, and also causing insecurity in the minds of those who are at present- operating road services. The lion. H. G. R. .Mason said it was not Mie normal thing that appeals should lie the usual procedure, filial was not in accordance with law which held that litigation should he brought to finality. The law recognised that appeals favoured ;hc man with a long purse, and that I (Otter justice was not necessarily secured by extending the number of appeals, fi lie intention oi llie provision was that the decision of the Minister should nnl be ot aside on formal grounds, and to secure the Minister against Irivolous attacks. JUSTICE THROWN TG WINDS Mr. K. J. ilolyoake (Nat., Muliu-ua) saiit the Minister said the lull followed the English Act, but that was merely a smoke-screen. ale claimed that thousands ot persons last election voted against the last Government neeause it nail gone too far m the control of transport, especially in the hack country (list nets.

Air. S. (!. Sm 11 h (Nat., New I’ly moiitli) asked the Minister In give a precedent for establishing I bat the decision of n Minister could not he cheeked, challenged or revoked in any court of law.

Sir Alfred Ransom (Nat.. I’ahialua) said, undoubtedly, many persons who had money invested in road services would be seriously affected. lie said Mr. Mason’s remarks all went to show that the ffovernment had thrown British justice to the winds, and he was attempting to uphold an unjust provision. He thought it was a reinarkanle statement that Mr. Mason had made—that the right of appeal was withdrawn because the appeal favoured one particular section of the eonimmiity. Mr. 11. At-more (Ind.. Nelson) said thut in his district all the small competitors of large concerns were squeezed out by the Transport. Co-ordination Board. lie would sooner trust the Minister than the hoard, which was not a representative of the people. If the Minister made mistakes there would he plenty of critics. But let them wait till he did so before they started poison ing people’s minds. •’THIS INFIvKXAI. M ACM IN K" The Hon. It. fsemple, in reply, said he had stated l in the committee stage that, with a minor alteration, the clause dealing with the Minister’s decision was exactly what the Knglish Act aimed to do. '[’here was no appeal against the Transport- Co-ordination Board’s derisions. except on the ground of lack ol jurisdiction or method ot procedure. It had been claimed that the measure was unpopular in the public mind amt that its introduction was resented, but he had not received one telegram or one letter genuinely object ing to the measure, and lie asked the Opposition if they had any' to let him have them. There was no real logical, valid objection that had come to him as- Minister from the people or a transport operator. The Opposition's objections were only moonshine and Imnkiirn.

Mr. Semple said he had not heard one individual defend the hoard, and. if they had not one friend in the llomin-

ion, tin re must be something wrong with them. liven conservative newspapers used some very indicting language against the board, and depute t.ions, as be bad said, had asked him <o get. rid "of the. infernal nun lone. Ihe Minister would at least he answerable to the people for what he did. lie was satisfied the Transport Co-ordination Board let the last .Minister down, because there were many good provisions in the hill, and if they had hern put into operation, they would not have the tangle they were in to-day. An incompetent board had entered into the picture and crucified itself and crucified the Minister, hot the Minister laid ■<'- rnnined loyal to it and would not say so. The aim of the (foverunirnl was to give the people a speedy, safe, and up-to-date form of service. The bill then passed its third reading.