Wairarapa Times-Age WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1941. DISTRICT ELECTIONS.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 7 May 1941, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1941. DISTRICT ELECTIONS.

WHILE the war has done a good deal in this district and in other parts of the Dominion to distract attention from the local body elections for which nominations have .just closed, another factor operating no doubt has been a very general desire to avoid, in these critical days, any needless disturbance of steadygoing effort. A. large proportion ol the electors are content, in existing circumstances, that even questions• which normally would give rise to discussion and in some instances to contention should be allowed to stand over until quieter and more settled days return, or at all events until the period oi war effort and demands has been succeeded by that of post-war reconstruction.

Although as the nominations stand, elections will be necessary in this district for a number of local bodies, or sections of local bodies, it may be doubled whether much animation will be imparted to these contests. The general inclination seems to be to postpone to a more opportune time even affairs and proposed developments in the field of local government which normally would be regarded as of considerable moment.

Where, as has happened in a number of instances, well-tried representatives have been returned unopposed to carry on duties which they have discharged capably and creditably for a more or less extended period, there certainly is no reason for regret. The counties and towns of the Wairarapa have had long and faithful service from many chairmen and members of local bodies. Mr J. AV. Card, for example, has the remarkable record of 45 years’ continuous local body service in Featherston and has now been returned unopposed as Mayor alter holding that office for 24 years. This and other unopposed returns may be regarded as indicating definitely public confidence and approval —not that confidence necessarily has been forfeited in all. eases where elections are being contested.

One of the unopposed returns to be welcomed unreservedly is that of Air T. -lordan as Mayor of Masterton. Even those who have fallen foul of him at times in public controversy may be expected to agree that not only in ability and experience, but in the time and energy he devotes to his public duties, Mr Jordan is altogether exceptional and outstanding. He has been Mayor of 3fasterton for sixteen years and has been returned unopposed on a number of occasions. Proof ol his quality appears, amongst other things, in the fact that he has been for six years President of the Municipal Association of New Zealand and has served on a number of other national bodies, including the original Transport Appeal Board and the Townplanning Board. As Mayor, Mr Jordan has set high standards in financial administration and in the management of town affairs generally and in him Masterton has had a most.excellent representative and spokesman on many noteworthy public and national occasions.

In spite of the saying that there is no man who is indispensable and whose place cannot be filled, Masterton is to be congratulated upon being able to retain in these troubled and anxious days a Mayor like Mr Jordan, ft will be a good thing for the town and the district if his services are still available in the days of difficulty, and it may be hoped also of enlightened and progressive enterprise, which will follow the war. TRANSPORT APPEALS. RATHER lame and halting approach to a reform greatly needed, is made in the announcement by the Minister of Transport (Mr Semple) that Sir Francis Frazer has been appointed to inquire into and report on all appeals from decisions of the Transport Licensing Authorities. The appointment of an independent tribunal to deal with transport licensing appeals, in accordance with an approved and clearly defined policy, is greatly to be desired, but Sir Francis Frazer, in terms of the announcement is only to “inquire into and report on’’ appeals, presumably to the Minister of Transport, with whom, in that case, the final decision will continue to rest. The personal qualifications of Sir Francis Frazer, who was chairman of the original Transport Appeal Board, of course are not in question. What is in question is the method of regulating transport services of all kinds in the Dominion. The Transport Co-ordination Board, which followed the first Transport Appeal Board, admittedly was a failure, but co-ordination, in accordance with equity and national interest —in other words a just reconciliation of the interests of transport operators and those of the ultimate users of transport—is st,ill the key to a fair, efficient and economical regulation of transort in all countries. It need not be doubted that the Minister of Transport has endeavoured to discharge conscientiously his duties as supreme arbiter of all questions relating to the licensing and regulation of transport, but even before he had taken over the portfolio of Railways in addition to that of Transport he might be supposed, as a member of the Government, to lie biased almost inevitably, in some degree, in favour of the State-owned railway undertaking. That the fullest-possible use should be made of the railways, in the extent to which that can be.done efficiently and economically, is or should be beyond question. It is not in the public interest, however, that any one form of transport should be favoured. What is desirable is that- the broad policy should be laid down by Parliament of vising the best and most economical methods of transport that are available, including a much more extended co-ordination of railway and road services than has yet been attempted, and that this policy should be developed and regulated by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority in the public interest, and of course with due regard to the legitimate interests of transport operators. There is not much doubt that under wise regulation full vise could be found for the whole of our existing transport equipment, but that in these conditions it could he used much more economically and to better effect than at present. >Some years ago, in spite of the complexities and confusion in which the whole transport situation was involved, it seemed possible that an approach might be made in this country to an economical rationalisation of services. Attempts were being made to arrive at an accurate capital and operational costing of railway and road services and on that basis it should have been possible to provide a firm basis for efficient and equitable coordination and regulation. Instead of these hopes being realised, however, we have moved, where transport is concerned, into conditions of deeper confusion—conditions of which examples arc cropping up continually. It does not seem likely that a way of escape from this confusion will be found in the arrangement now announced.