WIDE POWERS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 188, 11 August 1931, Page 10

WIDE POWERS

THE TRANSPORT BILL y | OBJECTIONS TO PROVISIONS. i j | (By the Associated Chambers of Commeivc of New Zealand.) I Further evidence has come to hand •of the obicctiou that is being taken tq the Transport Licensing Bill because | of the wide powers that the measure j coi.fers on the 51inistcr ami Commis* sioner of Transport, and because of 1 the likelihood that the system contcmj plated by the Bill will prove expensive 'ami unsatisfactory in operation. ' J’veu if the view be held that fair ■ and free competition can be carried too far in a matter like transport, the ' I proposals in the Bill for the “co-ordin-i alien of transport.’’—viewed in the ! most favourable light—cannot redeem 'the dangerous bureaucratic provisions ! with which they are liuked. Ono of these gives the, IMinister of Transport, solo power to appoint the members o.f ! the district and central licensing authorities, liesides recommending apI pointments from nominations or tho Appeal Board, and on this point ati tention has already been drawn in the i southern Press to the fact that proI t«’<t. against similar provision in tho i London Passenger Transport Bill hag , been made by the Association of Bri- ! tish Chambers of Commerce. A re- . -• by them foi an amendment ■ < ! tho ”.ili was considered essential in v order that the appointments to tho pro- ' posed board of live members—appointi meats to be made by the Minister of I Transport—should be guarded from influence by any political party. Ami Ilhis when there is no entanglement of I i the position by a State-owned service, as is the case in New Zealand. Stand on Merits? Il may be that the railways of New [Zealand, which have to make applicaI tion for a licence in common with i other competitive services, will checrfu.l stand or fall on the merit of the | ease they make out for themselves, giving way, if it is so ruled, to a rival ; appl.'mt that, can ensure a more economii service, but there are features j ol' the Bill that, seem to load the dice. I "i instaai . Ihe licensing authority is • i required by the Bill to have regard ! to ceriain. matters afl’ccting the uppii- • ! < ant for a licence, and any reprosentalinns received by it at a public sitting, ai I any representations otherwise made, !•; the Government Kailways | Board, local authorities, or other public ; ' belies, or any persons carrying on , transport services of any kind likely to be affected. . ” This means that the t ’ Government Kailways Board, local and i ju.'l'iie. authorities, and certain persons | I arc allowed to make their representa- • lions iu private! Again, be it 1 '..ng authority to consider an applies- A / . lion, ii shall hear all evidence tendered r and representations made which ifc g j deems relevant to the subject, matter j iof the application, “save that at any | ili i' during such sitting it may decide ■ | not to receive further evidence of re- | i presentations.' ’ This is reminiscent of i the Irish judge who said in Court: k | “Well, gentlemen, I have heard one I side of the case, ami I am quie satisI lied in mind. J don’t want to hear | ; ,",n> evidence for the other side because I it will only confuse me.’’ | Concerning goods services, the Mini«• I Ji< r is euipowmcd by the Bill to prog biliit through the “Gazette,” the I • carrying on of a goods service by an I jovnci until that owner becomes the | i ! oldoi uf a licence, and no appeal shall | pie to lhe Transport Appeal Board | ■ i-'ioner fitiidcr this section. I What arc these but Star Chamber I I n.rthods? It is a matter of concidI 1 able importance because the Minister | ' could exercise this most, extraordinary I pov\.*r if he so chose, against any coni- | !iipi< ini man delivering only his own I I goods on his own vehicle. It is con- } i (■•■iva.ble that, if such a man were nnI ' successful in securing a licence, he ■ would have to hand over the transport | {of his goods to a more fortunate ap« I | plican.t to the licensing authority. I : This has a flavour of sheer appropri* I ; hand over his goods to a service with | i which he is not allowed to compote— I lif such compel i’ on over really existed I ' —with a not impossible increase in his I ' costs in conseauenee. Legal Appeal C urt. I Jt i- not sutii'i nt defence of fh<! i Bill to miv that its success depends on i the manner in which tho Act is ad l i ministered, because failure, injustice. * ami expenso to the community depend ■ on the self same thing. One businessman : “1 <-annot. express a real S ; opinion on the Bill until the regulations 9 |bv Order in Council appear, and then ? |it will be too late.” That is one of ■ i the main troubles with the Bill, so I ' manv vita con-iderations aro left to | , regulations The Association of BriI tish Chambers of Commerce, by its re* 3 qu- -L for mi amendment |> the power? | •of the Minister of Transport undci 3 j the London Passenger Transport Bill N lis seeking to place a fence at the toj N iof the precipice before tlmro is net: g ! for an ambulance at the bottom. fl The objection against the genera! 3 provision of the Bill that there shall B .be no appeal to the Courts of law ■ woul-1 be largely overcome if the chairfl ; man of the Transport Appeal Board H a t ie a Magistrate, or a Judge of the I , Supreme Court, ami his two | i members of the legal fraternity, but I since the Minister still has the solo I : power to appoint lhe members of the B district ami central licensing authoriB ti'*s, such an amendment would be ■ another case of the precipice and the ■ i ambulance. Bureaucratic provisions I play too great a part in tho Bill for it h to bo enacted in its present for.» with ■ any equanimity, leave alone elation, ■ on the part of the community. It I shoul lgo down in hi lory as tho “Star ■ Chamber Bill.” Even if there should H b< a desire I public for the reU striction of transport services, the preH ; ference extended in <>e Bill to Govfl i ernment, local, and ] üblic body scrfl i vices require the most serious confl | siileration in the light of the possible w i increased cost to the com* u aril r-t a relation in economic S i progress in transport. M |