TRANSPORT PROBLEM

Waihi Daily Telegraph, Volume XXXV, Issue 8920, 26 May 1936, Page 2

TRANSPORT PROBLEM

THE LICENSING AMENDMENT BILL

CONTROL BY MINISTER

MR J. THORN SUPPORTS CHANGE

That the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill was the outcome of a conviction that the legislation passed on the subject since 1924 had dealt inadequately with a problem, which the rapidity of scientific discovery and mechanical invention had very seriously complicated, and which had been further confused by irrational competition was the opinion expressed by Mr J. Thorn, M.P. for Thames, in the debate on that Bill in the House of Representatives.

“Merely to enumerate the several acts and amendments since passed is to gain the impression of an attempt to catch up on a problem that has always outpaced our legislators.”' said Air Thorn. “This legislative process culminated in 1931 in the passage of the Transport LicensingAct, and in 1933 in the amendment to that Act, under which the Transport Co-ordination Board was constituted. Like the Railways Board,, this Transport Co-ordination Board j has now been swallowed up in obliv- | ion. It has departed this life ‘unJ wept, unhonoured and unsung.’ BeI fore that ‘happy event’ took place, | the situation that confronted this ! Government was that the railways ' were controlled by an independent j board, shipping was run by private : enterprise and road transport was in : the hands of public and private ser- | vices operating under license issu- ' ed by the transport licensing autliori- ■ ties while the air services were priv- ! ately operated under similar condii tions.

LACK OF CO-ORDINATION

“Obviously there had been precious little co-ordination,” the speaker continued. “Transport was in a chaotic condition and where there is cl

liaos there is certain to be a serious waste of resources and disservice to the public interest.” The legislation enacted by previous Governments from 1924 onwards was subjected to criticism on the lines that private enterprise was interfered with.

Motor transport on the roads was traced by Mr Thorn from its origin. He stated that from tlTe time such transport appeared to any extent it opened up a period of “unbridled competition.” The effect of that was felt on the workers, and he quoted several instances of accidents to motor trucks due to the drivers falling asleep. “The ‘big three’ were not greatly impressed with the need for control, and yet long driving hours on trucks and other vehicles constitute a menace to public safety and are the root cause of much of the uneconomic competition in the field of transport,” he said. Four opinions were quoted on the matter of transport control in which the system of allowing “free transport” was not supported. That the Opposition had argued that the Bill would create a dictatorship was stressed by Mr Thorn. “But it is humbug,” he said, “for those who set up the Transport Co-ordination Board to accuse this Government of creating a dictatorship, for what wa3 that Transport Co-ordination Board but the very worst kind of dictatorship? ... It could even come to decisions injurious to our great railway service in which New Zealand has invested nearly £60,000,000.”

NO CONFIDENCE IN BOARD

Dir Thorn, in alluding to the railways, stated that they owed the country nothing. ’’They created millions upon millions of pounds worth of land values, and those values have been pocketed by other interests. If they had been credited to the railways, even Mr Coates could not raise any argument about the railways not paying.

; “But to return to the Transport ' Co-ordination Board. While this : board had such absolute power, it i was the Minister and the GovernI “lent who had to bear the responsibility for the results of its decisions. What could be a more irresponsible I dictatorship than that? It would not have mattered so much had the board exercised its powers efficiently. But everybody knows that it did not do so. It is the bare truth to say that. the public has no confidence iit the Transport Co-ordination Board: the Railways Department certainly" had no confidence in it; the Transport Department has no confidence in it; and I question whether the last Minister of Transport had any confidence in it. If he had, why did ho refuse to act on the only two recommendations it made oil questions referred to it, by him? He referred to the question of the rates of coastal snipping and the question of motor transport. It made recommendations and he refused to act upon them,’* Mr Thorn declared. MINISTER’S POSITION The opinion of the Motor Unions regarding the board were quoted. Mr q horn his argumeilta hat the Minister would not be a dictator stating that he would be ad- ; vlsed by competent departmental officers persons appointed to report on matters, by the fact that large sums were invested in private road trans- .. and motor transport was him y r POP , U . lar and by tlle responsibility f°r his acts for which he deS!red the approval of the community. the M? Se / a ? tors Would ensure that; he Minister s judgment would be tan and balanced and therefore like-' y to serve only the public interests.