AUCKLAND BUSMEN PETITION PARLIAMENT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17905, 22 July 1926, Page 5

AUCKLAND BUSMEN PETITION PARLIAMENT.

ALLEGE COUNCIL NOT IMPARTIAL BODY. (Special to the “Star ’j , c , WELLINGTON. July 22. . .Select Committee dealt with a petition lodged by the Auckland bus proprietors. Mr Campbell gave evidence that in Auckland there were 180 privatelyowned buses engaged in the city and suburbs. They employed over 500 men. The capital value of the buses and accessories was over £250,000. The two mam companies were the Roval and Mount Eden, each with a fleet of thirty buses. He objected to the licensing authority being interested in any way in the transport business. It was against the principles of British law and justice. A vitally interested competitive party should not control his competition. Moreover, it was a recognised principle that the minorityshould not rule. The licensing authority in Auckland could not possiblv be an impartial body. He suggested if an independent authority by- popular vote, in the same manner as a Power Board, were elected they would have objected to a penal fare, as it would have the effect of putting the bus companies out of business and would mean the raising of bus fares in outside districts and prevent patronage. The natural result would be that the buses would ha\-e to go off the road. A penal fare was not called for by the circumstances of the case in Auckland at present. It had been claimed that the buses were causing losses to the tramways. Evidence was against that. It was stated that Auckland had lost £3OOO on the tramways, but he challenged the figures and called for a full investigation. The bus proprietors were certain that any losses occasioned had been the result of municipally-ownerl buses. Private-ly-owned buses had not resulted in any loss on the tramways. Furthermore, the City'- Council in 1925 had cut fares with the avowed object of smashing bus competition. Ilow could private owners be charged with being the cause of the loss, when the loss on the tramways was due to the action of the Council itself? The loss on the tramways had also been due to the increased running costs. The proprietors had never objected to an insurance clause. They believed that insurance should be made compulsory-. When there was a large fleet there should, be provision for a blanket policy-. The municipal buses should come under the regulations in the same way as privatelyowned buses. They- should be on the same basis as themselves. Buses in Auckland served the public. If they were forced off the road the public would suffer. It had been said that they were pirates and had gone into districts where trams had been pioneers and had taken the cream of the trade. Rather the boot was on the other foot, lie quoted an instance where the Council had followed private enterprise in one district and reduced fares in an endeavour to put private buses off. It was patent that the Council could not fully cope with the traffic. The Council had purchased thirty- buses out of unauthorised capital and was now seeking authority to purchase thirty more. Auckland proprietors felt that any appeal should be made to the Supreme Court.

Answering Mr Holland, witness said the population of Auckland had increased very considerably in recent \-ears, and bus competition had not ma®e the tramways unprofitable. Mr Dickson questioned the witness about the number of owners who had gone bankrupt before there had been any competition by- the council. All* Campbell said those who had gone bankrupt were owner-drivers, but now companies had been set up and these were properly controlled. Mr Dickson: What is the life of a bus ? Mr Campbell: Properly serviced, about four years. Mr Macmillan: Don’t you tiling the regulations were framed in the interests of the general public? Witness: No. They were framed to protect the tramways. They had al-way-s been more or less under the regulations. What they- wanted was fair regulations.

Mr Fraser: If these regulations -were satisfactory to y-ou, y-ou would have no objection to an Order-in-Council ? Witness: No. Mr Fraser asked if the witness was aware that the regulations in Sydney were much more drastic. Mr Campbell said there was a difference between control and confiscation and socialisation of industry. Mr Fraser: You want an investigation into the Auckland City Council affairs so far as tramways are concerned? Witness: Yes. Would you be prepared to have the same light thrown on the affairs of private buses companies? No, I don’t think so. It is an un-heard-of thing to have such an investigation of a private company’s affairs. Mr Campbell answered Mr Forbes by say-ing that if it were put to a vote he believed the people would be overwhelmingly in favour of the buses. A SLIGHT BREEZE. (Special to the “Star.’’) WELLINGTON, July 22. A slight breeze occurred at the special Parliamentary- committee of inqxiiry in regard to the bus regulations. When questioning Mr Campbell about insurance matters, Mr Fraser was rebuked by the chairman for suggesting “ something which has already bene refuted by the witness.” Mr Fraser: May- I be permitted to deal with the witness. The chairman should not act as counsel for the bus companies. Mr Lee: T am endeavouring to conduct this meeting in an impartial manMr Fraser: 1 hope so. Mr Lee said that Mr Fraser must put his questions as questions and not as statements. Mr Fraser: Very- well, but I must enter my- protest at your endeavouring to answer for the witness.