PARLIAMENT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 195, 19 August 1931, Page 8

PARLIAMENT

YESTERDAYS SESSION TRANSPORT LICENSING BILL LIMITING MOTOR SERVICES MEMBERS EXPRESS VIEWS • [ Per Press Association. ] WELLINGTON, Aug. 18. The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. Mr M. J. Savage (Labour. Auckland West; asked the Minister of Education whether he had considered the judgment recently given in the Supreme Court at Auckland in the matter of the employment of married women teachers, and whether he intended to make a statement dealing with the matter. Hon. H. Atmore said that the judgment was being considered and he hoped to make a statement in a day or two. lieplying to Mr R. Me Keen (Labour Wellington South) Mr Atmore said he regretted that the activities of the Education Department in the direction of reducing the size of classes had been halted as a result of the financial situation. Everyone was ia agreement that the classes were too large. He added that arrangements had been made with the Unemployment Board for financial assistance in the matter of finding teaching work and rationing it among those teachers at present unemployed. The Petone Borough Council Empowering Bill was reported from the Local Bills Committee with amendments. The Distress and Replevin Amendment Bill was reported from the Statutes Revision Committee with amendments. The Committee of Privilege reported in respect to the charges against Bond and Bond and the New Zealand Herald. It confirmed the resolution of the House that there had been a breach of privilege, and reported that it had received assurances from both parties that the breach had been made unwittingly. It had also received expressions of regret, and recommended that in view of those expressions no further action should be taken. The report was tabled. Transport Services. The Transport Licensing Bill was reported from the Special Select Committee with amendments. Mr A. E. Ansell (Reform, Chalmers) said he wanted the Minister of Transport to get over the difficulties raised by the municipal authorities in respect to legislation. There was objection to the abolition of portions of the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act dealing with muni eipal authorities. He mentioned the ease of the Auckland Transport Board, which had operated successfully under the Motor Omnibus Act. The services which were causing so much loss were not local ones but the through ones. He desired the Minister to do his utmost to assist local authorities in this respect. Mr W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) supported Mr Ansell in his claim for some compromise with the local authorities. If this were not done the Bill would meet with serious opposition in the House. Mr R. A. Wright (Reform. Wellington Suburbs) stressed the need for curtailing competition between road and rail, and said that if the Government had not protected the tramway undertakings in the cities they would have been annihilated and the cost passed on to the ratepayers. The same applied to the railways to-day. Mr W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) submitted that the local authorities should be given a maximum of pow-er to control the transport svstem within their own tjoundarios. whether it were trams or buses. Huge New Department. Hon. J. G. Coates (Leader of the Opposition) agreed that transport authorities. under the legislation, should control all through services. However, he was not in favour of the immediate creation of a huge new Government department. The state of things might Bp left much as it was now. and the provisions of the legislation brought into operation gradually. One matter for serious objection was that the central licensing authorities, ignorant of lorai conditions, would be able to dictate the mutes of services irrespective of the state of the roads. That surely was the function of the local body. Ron. W. A. Veitch: The Bill doesn’t provide fnr that. Mr P. Fraser (Labour. Wellington Central) urged that every endeavour consistent with maintaining the effieienev of the measure, should be made to meet all the points of view expressed bv the various interested authorities, particularly the municipalities. He paid a tribute to the manner in which the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act had worked. Mr C. H r’inknrd (United. Rotorua', said he could not conceive the likelihood of anv transport licensing board failing to meet the views expressed by the municipalities. Mr Veitch said that an important duty devolving unon the Minister in charge of the Bill was that in endeavouring to meet the wishes of those who had been influenced from various quarters, and tn whom misrepresentations had obviously been made, he should not allow the principle of the measure to bo destroyed. Tt was absoliitelv necessary that some confidence should be nlaeed in those responsible fnr the administration of the Art. When it was passed it would become quite impracticable to administer the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act alongside this measure. The Motor Omnibus Traffic Art had dealt with a pressing problem as it had existed at the time the Art was passed. The problem was to-day much more extensive, and had reached far beyond the limits of the powers of any local body. Tt had. in fact, become a national one. and the time had come for the formulation of some fixed principle for coping with it. Rail and Motor. The existing legislation had had the effect of eliminating competition with publicly-owned tram services, and the question arose whether this principle should be extended in the direction of eliminating competition with all publicIv owned transport services. Mr W. D. Lysnar: Hear! Hear? That’s what you ought to do. Continuing. Mr Veitch said that if. when the Moto? Omnibus Traffic Act had been passed, it had then been laid down that such a course should be followed, he would have concurred, but

that had not been done. Meanwhile services had been established on public roads and large sums of money had been invested in them. It seemed to him that it would be a travesty of British justice and contrary to the principle of the constitution if Parliament now summarily passed a law that would sweep these services out of existence. The Bill, however, would prevent an increase in the number of pri-vately-owned motor services running in competition with the Railway Department, and would co-ordinate and encourage those services which were now serving the Department, of which there were many. The Minister said that the principal points raised during the debate had related to what was believed to be inter fcrcnce bv the Governiv- - *nt with rights of local bodies. He pointed out that under the measure local bodies would still make their own by-laws, which it would not be possible to over-rule except by means of the very reasonable process which the measure proposed to lav down. It was provided that if the holder of a transport license believed he had been unfairly treated by a local body, he would then make application to the transport licensing body which would consider the case, and if it was satisfied there was no injustice, the applicant would then have no further recourse. If the licensing body agreed that there was ground for the applicant ’s protest, it would endeavour to reach a settlement by means of a conference of the interested parties. In the event of such conference failing to attain a solution, the case would then be referred to the Appeal Court which the Bill proposed to set up. and the decision of that Court would be final. Mr Veitch intimated that he proposed to submit an amendment providing that where it was proposed to inaugurate a motor service in any area where the local authority already had a tram service, the local authority concerned should have absolute preference over any private enterprise. Mr Nash (Hutt): Suppose the local body does not want to start a motor service to compete with its trains? The Minister said that provision would be included that where any application was made, the licensing board must satisfy itself that the proposed service was necessary, or in the public interest, and if that were not so the application would not be granted. Cost of Motor Transport. Mr Veitch stated that there were were very few people who realised the cost of motor transport to the Do minion. It was in the neighbourhood of £32,000,000 per annum. Whereas a railway engine was written off at the end of 30 years (allowance havin ( been made for two boilers) motor vehicle depreciated at the rate of 25 per cent, per annum. The loss on motor vehicles was one of the burdens on the country ratepayers, and where unnecessary motor services could be eliminated without interfering with the reasonable rights of private people, it would be possible to reduce the cost of maintaining roads. The Minister remarked that the cost of administration of the Bill should not exceed £5OOO a year, and this would, at the same time, be relieving another department of some of its expenditure. He added that with the exception of amendments that would hinder the efficient administration of the measure, or that would stand in the way of economies which it would effect, he would be pleased to consider every proposal which members might desire to put forward. Mr A. E. Jull (United) chairman of the special committee, replying, said that there appeared to be a disposition on the part of members to press for an increase in the number of licensing authorities rather than to reduce them. Under the provisions of ; the Act there were 13 authorities, and

surely the time had arrived when they should make some reduction in that number. In most countries where transport legislation was in force, the number of authorities was small. In America, for instance, there was only one authority for each State, although the population of some States was greater than the population of New Zealand. The report was received.