MASTER CARRIERS EXPRESS VIEWS ON TRANSPORT BILL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18889, 12 October 1929, Page 33 (Supplement)

MASTER CARRIERS EXPRESS VIEWS ON TRANSPORT BILL.

STATEMENT ISSUED DEFINING ATTITUDE

The New Zealand Master Carriers’ Federation, representing the commercial vehicle owners of the Dominion, has the following statement concerning its attitude towards the Transport Bill: As a general rule legislation means further restriction of the rights of individuals, and the Transport Bill is no exception. The federation, however, recognises the need of a comprehensive policy of regulating motor transport in the interests of economic progress and safety. Believing that the Transport Bill represents an honest endeavour on the part of the Government to place motor transport on a sound economic basis, the federation approves the Bill generally. At the same time, the proposed constitution of the Main Highways Board is not considered to be satisfactory, inasmuch as the vehicle owners, comprising both commercial vehicle owners and motorists, have been given one representative only for each island. The commercial vehicle owners will not be satislied to be represented by a motorist, and it is safe to assume that the motorists will not be satisfied to be represented by a commercial vehicle owner. The commercial vehicle owners pay approximately £700,000 per annum by way of special road taxation, the greater part of which goes into the Highways Board fund. It follows, then, that the commercial vehicle owners are entitled to direct representation on the Main Highways Board. One of the principal features of the Bill which meets with the approval of the commercial vehicle owners is that provision which removes the power to license transport services from the hands of local bodies and places it in the hands of a special tribunal. The existing system whereby a local body conducting transport services can exercise its licensing powers in respect of competitive services in such a manner as to create for itself a monopoly of public transport is one which cannot be defended, and incidentally is one which has been the subject of condemnation by a Supreme Court Judge. The manner in which one licensing authority in particular has exercised its powers to grant or tefuse licenses is in itself sufficient to justify the proposal in the Bill to appoint special licensing authorities. Another provision of the Bill which must commend itself to all fair-minded people is the one which provides for the payment of goodwill to private enterprise whose services may be acquired by the State or a local body. It is not right that a person should be deprived of the fruits of his labour, after having devoted his capital and energy to pioneering a transport service. In the course of pioneering a service the owner may lose several thousand pounds and, say, in the third or fourth year commence to show a profit and recover some of his lost capital. Surely it is not right in such a case that the local body should be able to step in as soon as the service becomes profitable, and acquire that service without compensating the owner for goodwill. That would amount to nothing short of confiscation, and yet the local bodies seek that right. To provide for that to be done would deter private enterprise from pioneering services, and yet it is a fact that in a large number of cases services have been pioneered by private enterprise only after a local body has declined to undertake them.

• Still another commendable feature of the Bill is the effort being made under it to bring about uniform regulation of motor transport throughout the Dominion. At the present time, each one of a multitude of local bodies makes its own by-laws regulating motor transport and grave dissatisfaction amongst vehicle owners has arisen in consequence. The manner in which some local bodies are ••legislating in respect of motor transport and the manner in which some of them are administering statutory provisions relating to motor transport, render immediately necessary some legislation directed towards securing uniformity throughout the Dominion. Hitherto, the Dominion has been without any definite policy in transport matters—each new piece of legislation being prompted by the expediency of meeting a particular situation. Chaos has resulted. To the commercial vehicle owners, the Transport Bill appears to be a step in the direction of putting into effect a definite transport policy, without which chaos will continue. As each year increases the difficulty of controlling motor transport, it would be folly if the Government were to delay one day longer than necessary the enactment of a measure designed to properly control and regulate motor transport in the interests of national progress.

Although the Bill now before the House contains machinery for eliminating uneconomic goods transport, and the commercial vehicle owners may be seriously affected thereby, the latter are obliged to admit that, if regulation is essential to eliminate economic waste and generally promote the national welfare, the Government is justified in proceeding with the Bill. If there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Bill is a step in that direction the Government and each individual member of Parliament will fail in their duty if they oppose the passage of the Bill. For these reasons, the commercial vehicle owners desire to see the Bill passed in its present form, subject to a reconstitution of the Main Highways Board in the direction of giving equitable separate representation to the commercial vehicle owners and motorists.