THE HANGMAN

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 25, Issue 3759, 22 May 1936, Page 7

THE HANGMAN

AT ROPE’S END.

MR BROADFOOT’S ANALOGY OF TRANSPORT MINISTER’S ROLE.

Declaring that the issue involved in the bill was whether the whole of the transport services should be socialised or whether private operators would be allowed to function as ii’.the past, Mr W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo), speaking in the second debate of the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill on Wednesday evening, referred to the claim of the Minister (Mr Semple) that the operators of the country were favourable to the bill He said that he had. been fold by operators that the Minister had told them that the bill would not j be altered under any circumstances, but that he was prepared to consider suggestions to make the new principles work hotter. It was like a hangman, absolutely debarring any discussion with the condemned man on the rights and wrongs of the hanging, but expressing willingness to discuss the length of the rope and so on. (Laughter.) The operators were filling the role of the condemned man, and it was not difficult to see who was the hangman. The original legislation, Mr Broadfoot said, was admittedly experiment al and exploratory. There were four branches of transport—-railway servhices, road services, cqastal shipping and harbour and air services—and the total capital involved was 202,000,000, of which 160,000,000 was invested in publicly owned services. The avowed policy of the Government was to socialise the means of exchange, production and distribution, and much of the Government’s programme in that direction had been implemented. On the face of it the present legislation looked innocent, but in his opinion it was full of danger and the Government was using it as a cloak under which to further hamstrink private enterprise. STATE OWNED ROAD SERVICES. The principal passenger road services south of Dunedin, he said, were now State controlled, and within the next year or two he would not be surprised to see all the main services in the South Island mopped up. For years to come the railway system must be the backbone of the transport system, but the , remarkable growth of the road services for goods and passengers ’ had shown conclusively that there was a n,eed for additional and more mobile types of transport. He agreed that it was a government's function to control and regulate transport, but it was not in the best interests of the people to have a State monopoly in the running of such transport. They had seen under State control vast sums spent on railways that were never warranted in the old days. These lines were called political railways, and they had cost the taxpayers dearly. Were not they entering another such era? Would not the State be pushed into starting uneconomic services on the road? In his opinion that would happen, notwithstanding assertions which would be made to the contrary. Private enterprise was much more careful In starting those services, because it had to bear the losses, and it could not foist them on to the public as was done under State control. “DO NOT BE DELUDED.” The people should not be deluded by the catch phrase that transport was a public service and not an industry said Mr Broadfoot. Under the guise of public service all sorts of uneconomic services could be started and run, because the national exchequer could be pillaged for the losses. He asked the Minister what assurance he could give the people that the same good service provided by the road operators of to-day would be available under State cohtrol. The future needs of the people of New Zealand would be overlooked under State control, just as they were neglected and overlooked in the past. The proposal to place each of the four licensing districts under one man he added, was not sound. No one man would be capable of doing the job. The men appointed would be mere automatons in the hands of the Min isteL A SYNTHETIC CAESAR. Traversing the proposed system of licensing, Mr Broadfoot said the applicant would go to the Licensing Authority, and if necessary would appeal. The appeal would go before the Minister who, the Bill provided, need not hear any person or take any evidence. The Minister’s finding is final. He is the all-highest. He is a synthetic Caesar and there is no appeal beyond this synthetic Caesar. It would be well for the Minister to realise what happened to Caesar; his best friend Brutus destroyed him and the Minister’s best friend—the Minister of Railways, has been given the power in the Bill to over-ride, dominate and destroy the Minister of Transport

It was still one of the fundamental principles of British law that the hearing of disputes must be in open court, to which the public has access. But this principle is to be destroyed and star chamber methods to reign. Verily, said Mr Broadfoot, we are going backwards and downwards, with the brakes out of action.