“DISASTROUS”

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 92, 9 July 1927, Page 16

“DISASTROUS”

BUS REGULATIONS MR. HARRIS’S ATTACK LOYALTY TO BANNER (THE SL'S'S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Friday. I MAY be disloyal to the bannercarriers, but I am not disloyal to the banner itself,” said Mr. A. Harris in the House to-day when declaring his steadfast allegiance to the principles of the Reform Party—principles upon which he said they fought the last election, and principles which had not been kept by the leaders of the party. Mr. Harris chose as his topic upon which to attack the Government the operations of the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act of last year, which he said had done grievous harm to the districts in and about Auckland. At one stage Mr. Harris was rebuked by the Speaker for calling the regulations "iniauitIt was alleged by Mr. Harris that the Prime Minister had not executed his promise of five months ago to investigate the position as it affected Birkenhead, and which was brought before Mr. Coates at Auckland by a deputation from that suburb. He wished to know what steps the Government proposed to take to put right the harm that had been caused by the regulations. No more improper, no more iniquitous Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I would point out that the hon. member must not say that about a Statute passed bv this honourable House. He may suggest the repeal of the Act. Mr. Harris: I am going to suggest that it be repealed. Mr. Speaker; mnd 1 cpndemn it not so much in my own words as in the words of the Press throughout the Dominion. Not one single paper—except, perhaps. the "No w Zealand Worker"—has had a good word to say for the Act. Mr. H. T. Armstrong: “The Worker * is the only one that matters.

Mr. Harris outlined the position that existed at Birkenhead, where he said the co-operative bus concern that had commenced in opposition to the j»t*ivately-owned buses had been refused a licence, and later granted a licence through the appeal board conditional! y upon the management charging a minimum fare of sixpence. r»ie result was that one bus concern was running for a twopenny fare, while the other bus. even if it went only 100 rdS ’u forced to charge t>d. If cere pad been a tramway undertaking Here, compensation would have been maae available. He suggested that • ompetitive buses be entitled to compensation in such a case as this, when l° tlle Act were being conIf ibe Act was not to be repealed altogether. The Minister of Health: Are you going to tell us about Takapuna. ♦ Tl ? e public has dealt Jtjh this effectively—as soon as they

got to it there was not much loss of time. It is possible that no more drastic words were ever uttered from the {Supreme Court bench than those uttered by Mr. Justice Stringer in giving judgment against the Takapuna Borough Council.

Mr. Young: Do you agree to compensation for the tram wav company on its loss?

Mr. Harris: Loss? The boot was on the other foot. It was proposed to give over the whole of the buses to the tramway company, but it did not work, thanks to the good sense of the people of Takapuna. , ‘ I have been accused of being disloyal,” went on Mr. Harris. ’I am not disloyal. I stand absolutely loyal to the principles of the Reform Party. I wish I could say the same about some of the leaders. Can it be said that the slogan: 'More business in Government and less Government in business’ has been followed? If it had not been for the support given the Government last session bv the Labour Party, this Act would ‘never have become law. There we had the party standing for the socialisation of production, distribution and exchange, and the party standing for 'more business in Government and less Government in business’ combined. Scarcelv one member of the Reform Party had supported the measure in debate—they voted for it, of course—but would not support.”

Mr. 11. G. R. Mason: It is the vote that counts.

Mr. Harris: They must now admit that the Act has worked disastrously to the country. We find that in Auckland people are asked to pay 50 per cent, higher fares than before the Act was passed, they have a less efficient and less frequent tram service which does not do justice to the outside districts. The promise was made by the City Council that if the Act were passed the fares would not go up, and almost immediately they were raised. Notwithstanding this the council lost £45,000 on their buses, and in the previous year £30,000. They psed some of the tramway loan to purchase more buses, and at the rate we are going it will be £70.000 and then £ 100,000. How long are the ratepayers of Auckland going to stand this? No new trams have been built, and there is no intention of getting more. Where it is going to stop I don’t know.-