TRANSPORT CONTROL

Wairarapa Age, 23 May 1936, Page 5

TRANSPORT CONTROL

FURTHER DENUNCIATIONS OF DICTATORSHIP. PROTESTS BY OPPOSITION MEMBERS. MINISTER DEFENDS HIS BILL. (By Telegraph—“ The Age” Special.) WELLINGTON, May 22. Criticism of the dominating position in which the Minister of Transport is placing himself in respect of transport appeals reached its climax in the House in Committee to-day when Clause 13 came up for consideration. There was a short, sharp and highly amusing outburst against dictatorship, ■though the Minister stuck to his guns and, backed by a’ sure majority, got the clause retained. It provides that no proceedings before the Minister shall be held to be bad for want of form, no appeal shall lie from any appointment, decision or determination made by the Minister, nor, except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, shall if be possible for his decisions to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called into question in any court. “His position is impregnable with banbed wire, gas and rain-fire—nothing can touch him/' declared Mr. Coates. The Prime Minister: “He has not a monopoly of the gas” (Laughter). Mr. Coates expressed wonderment over how anybody could devise any sort of infernal machine which could get the Minister out of his shelter. Mr. Parry: “He is elected for three years. You have your opportunity. “Why should this special Minister be protected?” asked Mr. Coates. Mr. Langstone: “Because he is a good Minister” (Laughter.) “J fairl y aghast,” exclaimed Mr. W. J. Broadfoot, who, however, appeared to be enjoying the opportunity of expressing his amazement and of reminding the Minister of his democratic attitude when in Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forbes) suggested that the clause was due to the Minister’s realisation that there would be a good deal of dissatistaction over his decisions, although he usually claimed that he could trust the people.

“There’s a reason for this, though it looks like a little bit of despotism,” explained Mr. Semple, who told the House that there must be finality about these things. There should not be endless litigation, which was what had in the past - If a critic looked at the records he would find it did not need much of a loophole for a lawyer to get in. The slightest little on a peg t 0 han? his hat ou and litigation took place which yP The clause gave the Minister final power to decide and also to appoint an examiner to investifred e rt- S a ‘ the facts if he coasiderea this necessary. The clause was retained by 51 votes to 16 and the bill passed through Comthe House adjourning till Tues-