ROAD TRANSPORT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 29, 4 February 1935, Page 12

ROAD TRANSPORT

NO. 2 LICENSING AUTHORITY THE RECENT DECISIONS “Much publicity has recently been given to the refusal and restriction oi a group of goods-service operators in the South Auckland district by the No. 2 Licensing Authority,” states Mr H. J. Knight, secretary of the New Zealand Road Transport Alliance. “In order that the public generally shall know the principal facts, I desire to explain that goods-service operators must obtain a licence to continue their business, such licences being annual and expiring on May 3.1 of each year.

“New Zealand is divided into nine large districts and jurisdiction is exercised in ea*ch of these districts by a licensing authority appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Transport Licensing Act. The No. 2 Licensing Authority district comprises an area lying principally south, of Auckland City, and is a part of the Auckland province. “The work of considering applications for renewal of licences bv goodsservice operators for the licensing year June 1, 1934, to May 31, 1935, has been accomplished for some time in eight licensing districts comprising the whole of New Zealand excepting the No. 2 district referred to. “The result has been, generally speaking, quite satisfactory, renewals of licences having been granted in practically all *cases and it is noteworthy that these renewals include very many services of the same type as have been refused licences by the No. 2 Licensing Authority. “The other eight district licensing authorities are required to consider all applications in exactly the same manner as is the No. 2 Licensing Authority and there is no suggestion that they have not carried out their duties in a proper manner, moreover, there has been no wholesale appeal against their decisions whivh must, therefore, be regarded as generally satisfactory to all parties.

“The No. 2 Licensing Authority has elected to act in an entirely different manner to its eight fellows. I do not intend, however, to comment on the reasons given for the decisions which have been published in many papers as that matter will be the subject of consideration by a higher tribunal.

“With regard to the general question of control of transport, I wish to make it clear that motor transport alone is subject to control, which does not extend to either of the (competitive forms of transport, rail and sea. The position, therefore, is that throughout New Zealand with the exception of the No. 2 Licensing Authority District (subject to appeal) motor transport services have justified their existence as “necessary and desirable in the public interest” to quote the important words included in the Transport Licensing Act, whereas neither rail nor sea interests have yet been required to justify their continued existence similarly, or even had an opportunity to do

“It is a serious matter not only for the operators affected, but for the public of Now Zealand for whom all (commercial transport exists, when their facilities are threatened, and it appears clear that Legislative consideration, extending to the whole transport facilities of the Dominion will be necessary at no distant date.

“There is a widespread impression that the decisions referred to are final or irrevocable, such is not the case, and the operators affected will carry on their several businesses as formerly, subject to appeals which will be lodged within the prescribed time, nnd the whole matter will be dealt with in due course bv a higher tribunal.’'