TRANSPORT LICENSES

Waipa Post, Volume 44, Issue 3180, 21 May 1932, Page 8

TRANSPORT LICENSES

COMPETITION SO SEVERE THAT THE PUBLIC SUFFER. COMPETITION OR MONOPOLY? When in Palmerston North this week as chairman of the Transport Appeal Board, his Honour Mr Justice Frazer referred to what he described as "uneconomic, unrestricted, wasteful competition." Experience would show, he said, that unrestricted competition might be a dangerous thing. The experience of the United States some years ago in several large cities showed that the competition between tram cars, motor omnibuses and taxi cabs had been so intense that all three services were bankrupting each other, with the result that the public were in danger) of being left without the services. The result of the competition was so severe that the public eventually suffered. Counsel had stated that a monopoly was a dangerous thing, and while that was true, said his Honour, generally speaking, there were some services that could best be carried on as moriopolies. The Post and Telegraph Department had a monopoly, but nobody would suggest that it be deprived of the monopoly of the postal and telegraphic business. Sometimes _ a monopoly was the best way in which to control a service. The Transport Act was not for the purpose of wiping out competition altogether, and a monopoly was only granted when there was not room for two services on the same route. Then, in the public interest, a service was given a monopoly—but it was severely controlled by means of the time table and fares, while the vehicles used had to be approved. From the public point of view there was another reason against extensive competition. They had gone in for an extensive roading scheme, and if twice as many vehicles were allowed on the roads they would be worn out more quickly. He knew that people had faith in the saying that competition was the Hfe of trade, and had a holy fear of monopolies, but modern economists did not consider that mioriopoHes were I always a bad thing, or competition always a desirable thing. After referring to some aspects of the particular case under review, his Honour added that, although a transport service was being carried on by a private company, it was a public utility, and the public must be considered. By having a monopoly the company was acquiring not only a valuable right, but also a responsibility. The public were entitled to as reasonably comfortable service as it was possible to give. It was a case of public transport being dedicated to a private company, and the company must put itself in the position of holding a public trust.