TRANSPORT INDUSTRY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 124, 27 May 1936, Page 8

TRANSPORT INDUSTRY

HOUSE PASSES BILL OPPOSITION ATTACKS MINISTER’S ASSURANCE WILL SEE NO INJUSTICE DONE I Per Press Association ] WELLING 1 ON, May 2i ; . In the House ox Kepreseutauves to day, ou the third reading of the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill, Col. j. ilargest (Opposition, Awarua; said the Opposition mid been able to secure a lew amendments and tue Bill had been materially improved, but thexe were stoli some clauses which were pernicious to a degree. The Bill was opposed To everything that had made up New Zealand’s character in the last hundred years. Mr. C. H. Burnett (Gove.ament, Tauranga; thought that an appellant tribunal should have been appointed and the deciding of appeals not to the .Minister, ihe xumister would have been well advised if he had appointed such a tribunal. People had to be protected for the future and those wiio had large amounts invested m the t.ansport services had to be protected. He was not afraid of the position under tue present Minister, as he did not think there would be many appeals, but the Minister should have sucltereu himself behind a tribunal and avoided any controversial feeling that might arise. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Opposition, AYaitomoj wondered why Mr. Burnett, had waited till that stage to express hi» opinion. He agreed mat the .Minister nad made a mistake regarding appeals. The people’s right were m jeopardy and tuey had a light to have their interests guarded in the proper method and in tue proper quarter. Mr. W. T. Ande.tou (Government, Eden) said there was notaing in the Dominion that needed co-ordination more than the transport industry. He considered a single individual on the licensing authority could settle matters better tuan the tiibunals as constituted in the past. Vital Principle. Mr. W. P. Eudean (Opposition, Parnell) said that the Bill, as far as the appeal provision went, struck at a vital principle of British justice. Mr. J. G. Barclay (Government, Marsden) referred to the cut-throat competition existing between the taxi proprietors, who were forced to work very long houis, and said that co ordination among the taxi proprietors was the proper course to adopt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Opposition, Kaipara) asked why the Opposition shou.d sit down calmly and have Australian legislation imposed upon New Zealand. Mr. Burnett could not hope to escape criticism by making his protest at that late stage of the Bill. He referred to me “complete dictatorial'' powers taken by tne Minister and saiu the Minister hud placed himself superior to all courts of the land and members of the Government party were responsib.e with the Minister for breaking down the principle of justice. That had caused conflict in the past. He predicted that before long t»he Minuter would appoint Judges of the Supreme Court and magistrates to give a semblance of fail play to the measure. The appeal provision was taken from thy (Queensland Act, but did anybody suggest that conditions in New Zealam. were similar to those in Queensland’ The Bill was a retrograde step and a departure from the principles of British justice and irceuom, uuiua ue believed was the most precious tu.ug iu conserve. Hon. D. G. Sullivan, Minister •>! Kailways, said that Mr. Coates’ speech was a comp.ete misrepresentation of me clause dealing with appeals. He claimed that the Government had eve.y light to protect a licence that it had purchased. It was the people’s money mat was involved and ue wautcu security for the people s assets. Hon. G. . iuibvs said timt the opposition had eiidcavou.ed tu protect rights oi tue public and m c interests ox tue men \»uu were running tue private services ol the Bouiinioa. Tue wiioie policy of tue Government was to have feiate services. Mr. buliivaii; 1 will accept that. Mr. rorbes saiu me Opposition tiiougnt me.e was room xur pm ate enterprise and it was tne duty ux I lie Opposition to see tnat tue iigats of tue private services could not ue t-ikeu away without a full knowledge of waai was being done. He held mat tuere snould be eveu-hanued justice and tua. private enterprise should not be stilted, rue Bill contained e.emems which might cause a great deal of dissatisfaction in the future and it was causing insecurity in the minds of taose v. uo at present were operating road sen ices. Hon. il. G. R. Mason said it was not (he normal thing tnat appeals saouiu the usual procedure, mat was not .n accordance witn tne law, which held tnat litigation snouid be orougut to finality. 1 lie ia.» that appeals ravoaied tue man with ih-e long putse and that better justice was not necessarily secured by extending the number of appeals, rhe intention oi the provision was that tne decision of the Minister should not bet set aside on formal grounds and to secure the Minister against frivolous attacks. Opposition to Control When the House resumed at 7.30 p.m., Mr K. J. Holyoake (Opp., Mo;ueka) said the Minister said tue Bill followed the English Act, but that was merely a smokescreen. He claimed that thousands of persons at the last election voted against the last Government because it had gone too far in the control of transport, especially in the back-country districts. Mr S. G. Smith (Opp., New Plymouth) asked the Minister to give a precedent for establishing that the decision of the Minister could not be checked, challenged, or revoked in any Court of law. •Sir Alfred Ransom (Opposition, Pahiatua), said that undoubtedly many persons who had money invested in road services would be seriously affected. He said that Mr Mason’s remarks all went to show that the Government had thrown British justice to the wind and he was attempting to up- ■ bold an unjust provision. He thought It wm a remarkable statement that Mr : Mason had made that the right of ap-

peal was withdrawn because an appeal favoured one of a particular section of the community. Hon. R. Semple said he had not heard one individual defend the board and if they had not one friend in the Dominion there must be something wrong with them. Even conservative newspapers had used some very indicating language against the board and deputations had asked him to pet rid “of this infernal machine.” The Minister would at least be answerable to the people for what he did. While he was Minister of Transport he would see to it that no injustice was done to anybody. He was satisfied that the Transport Co-ordination Board let the last Minister down because there were many good provisions in the Bill and if it had been put into operation they would not have had the tangle they were in to-day. But an incompetent hoard entered the picture and crucified itself and erwified the Minister, but the Minister remained loyal to it and would not say so. The aim of the Government was to give the people a speedy, safp. and up-to-date form of service. The third reading was carried and the Bill passed-