CONTROL OF TRANSPORT

Wairarapa Daily Times, 18 September 1934, Page 6

CONTROL OF TRANSPORT

POLICY CRITICISED. After an extended discussion, in the course of which, the present limited control of transport was severely criticised (and condemned outright by some members) the,- Wairarapa Provincial Executive of the Farmers’ Union yesterday passed the following resolution, carried forward from the previous meeting:—“That this executive endorse the threefold principles (1) representation of carriers and automobile associations on county councils on the basis of no taxation without representation. (2) The review of heavy traffic licence fees in view of the severe taxation of carriers in the other directions (i.e., Customs duties, tire tax, motor spirits tax, fees under the Motor Vehicles Act, heavy traffic fees and drivers’ licences). (3) That the Transport Authority be empowered to review local railway services at the same time as it reviews local goods and passenger road services.” A sub-committee consisting of Messrs Duncan McGregor and L. T. Daniell propounded a series of questions, of which the first was whether the Transport Licensing Authority, as. at present functioning, was serving any useful purpose. Members were asked to consider also what was the original intention and purpose of the Transport Authority, what it had attempted, where it "was failing and what was the best direction in which to lead its activities.

Presenting the report of the subcommittee, Mr McGregor said that it was in the form of a questionnaire. So far as he was concerned his mind was not sufficiently made up to enable him to present definite recommendations. The Transport Act of 1931 provided for the licensing and control of road transport services other than tramways. He thought this Act had really been brought down in an attempt to protect the railways, which had lost a great deal of traffic to road services. There was ifo mention in- the Act of cost or of trying to provide cheaper transport. The one thing that had been emphasised was the enormous burden of transport costs in Hew Zealand. Personally he could not see where the licensing of motor vehicles was going to reduce that cost at all. He understood that the cost of administering the Act was £15,000. Wairarapa’s share of this outlay would be about £IOOO. Could anyone say this district had received £IOOO worth of benefit? There was a great deal of friction and inconvenience and in many cases the cost of transport had been increased. Under licensing, carriers frequently were, required to make a return journey with their vehicles empty, when loads were available. Ho had heard of an instance in which a carrier was not allowed to take his load over the last three miles because he was not authorised to go over the last stage of the journey. Under the 1933 amendment of the Transport Act the Co-ordination Board had been set up with wide powers of investigating the question of co-ordin-ating transport in New Zealand. He did not see any chance of benefit from licensing in the absence of a big scheme of co-ordination. In practice, however, the Co-ordination Board was an appeal board and it was not investigating the real transport problem in New Zealand. To his mind, the cart had been put before the horse. Had the board spent one or two years in investigating the problem of co-ord-ination, licensing might have been justified. As far as he could see the board was so cluttered up with appeals that it would never get down to the consideration of a co-ordination scheme. Unless something wider was going to be done, personally he would like to see the whole thing abolished. The present system of road licensing was causing far more friction than benefit.

Mr J. C. Cooper said lio was not opposed to regulation ensuring tliat transport vehicles were fit for their work, but that was as far as they should go. In the United States the nigger in the woodpile was the railways. They had enjoyed a monopoly for seventy years. Finding that they were losing business to the new system of motor transport, the American railways put vehicles on the road. Eventually those engaged in road transport formed themselves into n close corporation, excluding competition. Then the farmers woke up. There had been examples in America and here of the victimisation of individuals who were prevented from engaging in transport industry. To his mind they were going back in this matter to the guilds of three hundred years ago. If there were to be a close corporation and monopoly in transport why should not butchers, grocers and others adopt the same policy? Transport control in this country was being organised by the railways for their own advantage. Transport was a huge problem, Mr H. Morrison (Provincial President) observed, and it had not yet been brought to a solution in any country. The railways, which belonged to the people, were still the cheapest foim of transport. He believed that eventually there would have to be an independent board to take charge of transport, not for the benefit of roads, railways or coastal shipping, but to regulate the whole lot. He believed they had to have some regulation. The Commossioner of Transport (Mr J. S. Hunter) had stated that the cost of land transport in New Zealand was £42,000,000 a year. That was a huge amount and far too much. The present regulations were petty and some of them went too far, but lie believed the solution was to have one board, independent of political control, regulating all transport. The alternative was too much competition, over-capi-talisation and the ultimate bankruptcy of railways, road and coastal shipping services. The country would then be in a worse plight than ever. He was satisfied they were entering a new era in which planning and regulation would be forced upon them. Mr L. T. Daniell said Mr Morrison had stated that the railways were still the cheapest method of transport. Mr Morrison: "Over a distance.” Mr Daniell asked why, then, the railways were meeting with competition. For forty or fifty years, the railways had had a stranglehold and today it was suggested that they should be'allowed to carry on their monopoly. Mr Morrison: "I did not suggest that at all. I suggested having coordination of the whole lot.”

Mr Daniell said that transport control at present was so largely in the interest of the railways that it had reasonably been suggested that the railways should pay the whole of the £15,000 it cost to administer the Transport Act. The railways were largely represented on the transport authorities by ex-employees. It might be in the public interest to consider how many railway services should be scrapped, or how they could be improved. To-day that was not being done. Having dealt in some detail with restrictions on the use of trailers, Mr Daniell said that all sorts, of foolish restrictions were being imposed on the use of road vehicles. He contended that the representation of carriers and automobile associations on county councils had to come. Mr Morrison, defending the railways, maintained that they still represented the only possible means of conveying huge quantities of live and dead stock and of fertilisers and other heavy goods. Long haulage was still done much cheaper by the railways than by road. Mr J. C. Cooper observed that in the United States fleets of motor vehicles were carrying passengers and goods over routes of three thousand miles across the continent. Mr Morrison: “They cannot carry sliccp. * * Mr Cooper: “My sheep aye carried thirty miles by road. Why not carry them the other 70?” Mr Morrison said road transport was efficient in short haulage. He thought carriers should have representation on county councils. Mr 11. Bennett remarked that while carriers might have a claim to representation, automobile associations were very well represented on county councils now, though not directly. Carriers, through their representatives on county councils, would not have much say in expenditure on roads. All expenditure on highways was closely controlled by the Highways Baord. The principal grievance of carriers was the extortionate heavy traffic fees. Most councils had passed resolutions asking that these be reduced.

County councils appeared tc be unanimous, Mr McGregor observed, in holding that heavy traffic fees and the tire tax should be abolished in favour of the petrol tax. He agreed with Mr Morrison that there should be a broad co-ordination of transport, but at- present they were getting endless pinpricks and no advantage.