TRANSPORT BILL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 197, 21 August 1931, Page 12

TRANSPORT BILL

ECONOMIST’S VIEWS

THE PRINCIPLES ENDORSED

CUTTING OUT THE WASTE

The opinion that the principles < i the Transport Licensing Bill are i accord with sound economic standard is expressed by Professor B. E. Mu phy, Professor of Economics at Vi toria University College, whose menu ■ randuni on the Bill is included in tt evidence taken by the special Selet ; Committee of the House of Represent! : tives to which the measure was ref er re and which reported back to the Hous on Tuesday. Professor Murphy stated that ti , primary object of the Bill was t rationalise the motor transport indu try as it operated in the Dominion t< day, particularly as regards the coi veyance of passengers and goods b placing the industry under public n gulation and social control. Prim facie, the Bill meant further interfe: euce by the Government in industr and commerce, but the doctrine of noi intervention by the public powers i economic activities was merely a pri liminary objection, and this objectio could bo discharged if it was cogentl established that there was a probabilit that a balance of social gain over inc dental drawbacks would result. Th question was whether that was the cas with the motor transport industry a the present time, and he considere that a prima facie case for regulativ control existed because the motives o private interest and free competitio were not working for the protection o rhe consumer or the avoidance o national waste. Unnecessary competin; motor services over the same route were as wastefully consumptive o national wealth as would be competin gas installations in a town or competin; trams or drains down the same street Such duplication added immensely t the overhead of the industry withou corresponding improvement to the sei vice, and it was thus a national wastt Considerable portions of.the Dominio: now depended for passenger and freigh facilities on motor transport so that thpublic interest required the best practic able combination of efficiency and ecor oicy. That could not be secured unde conditions of unregulated competition Voluntary Methods Fail Experience had shown that voluntary co-operation was impossible to effee a permanent and satisfactory basis; am indeed, any serious attempt on the par of existing motor interests to effect i lor themselves would be met by a cr; that monopoly was being attempted Voluntary arrangements were also liabL to disturbance or destruction from in terloping wreckers. The only effective -oi.trol had to be imposed from without The choice in practice was bctweci State regulated co-ordination and m effective co-ordination at all. The typ< of regulation proposed by the Bill di< not eliminate competition among com peting services, since where the traflii justified it competing services would bi run as hitherto, but it woukl eliminate destructive competition, which wa: wasteful, in the long run, from the point of view of every interest con corned. If adequate services were tc bo provided and maintained, it was obvious that the inducement must be there, ami that inducement was sulli cient assurance of permanency anc reasonable operating conditions. A rationalisation to eliminate waste should so reduce costs as to enable charges to be lowered, and the licensing authorities, with the expert assistance of the Transport Department tc back them, were there to sec that charges were in fact kept at a reasonable level. Only in this way could the motor services provide a regular and dependable service, at a reasonable price, analogous to that furnished by ether established forms of transport, and experience showed that this element of stable calculability was essential for the satisfactory working of a large transport system in modern conditions. Keeping Down Costs “The incidental service of inspection is an important aspect of the Bill,” states Professor Alurphy. “Aluch preventable danger arises out of chaotic competitive conditions, meaning unduly high speeds, and excessive journeys by an over-tired driver, which have been responsible for manay accidents. There is also the necessity to ensure comfort and safety of travel, and safeguard the public interest in the roads, the construction costs of which, fall on. the public. These costs arc enhanced, at present by lack of speed regulation in the case of large and heavy vehicles. “This regulative system is not analogous to tho protection of an industry by tariff or bounty. It is the reverse, ‘it is designed not to protect the service companies, but to safeguard the public; and just as other public utilities are regulated in the public in terest as regards safety and standards of service, so should the motor industry. The benefits to the service companies should be considerable, but they are incidental, and not the object of the Bill, which is to protect the consumer, and not, like a tariff, to protect the producer. ‘‘The objection to ‘more Orders-in-Couucil’ begs the question. Whethei we like it ei not, government by Order-in-Council has come to stay, and will increase rather than diminish in area, because it is the only practicable way of coping with the complex functions of the State to-day. Modern economic life, especially the development of cities, industry, and transport, has fdiced on the Government entirely new fields of necessary regulative control, in which action must be both detailed ar.d flexible. Experience shows that this field cannot be regulated by formal acts of Parliament, and that the machinery of Parliamentary enactment is not suited for detailed administrative purposes. Duties of Local Bodies The regulative plan appears to be sound on general grounds, that is, the creation of a special delegated agency oi the State to attend to the problem in all its aspects, a regulative authority independent of other duties ami of existing motor interests already in the field of operation. Regulation of national motor traffic by local authorities is unsound in principle, for two main reasons. In the first place, they are interested as motor operators them selves, and no man or body of men. except the State itself, can be judge and jury in its own case. In the second place they are pre-occupied with local administration, and. localised in outlook and area of operation, while it is not ‘x-pedient to give local authorities juris-

diction outside their territorial limits. Economic and administrative areas should coincide, and that means a nation-wide authority. What concerns the people as a whole should be attended to by the representatives of the people as a whole. The job of local authorities is local affairs, and they should restrict themselves to that function. “I conclude that tho principles of the Bill arc in accord writh sound economic standards. The measure is, of course, tentative and in a sense experimental, and may require amend inent in the light of accumulated ad ministrative experience. It is in line with modern thought and practice in the field of motor transport in most advanced countries. The case is rein forced by the urgent necessity at the present time of eliminating or reducing preventible national waste.”