NEW LEGISLATION.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 237, 6 October 1928, Page 12

NEW LEGISLATION.

IS MONOPOLY POSSIBLE?

DOUBTFUL CLAUSE DISCUSSED.

BIGHTS OP PRIVATE OWNERS,

A short clause in simple language was introduced into the Auckland Transport Bill (now before Parliament) with the consent of all the interested parties, and a controversy lias now arisen as to what the effect of the clause !may be. ft reads: "All' licenses granted by the No. 1 Licensing Authority under the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act, 192G, for services running within or partly, within the district shall continue in force as if this Act had not passed, and all powers and discretions in relation thereto which might have been exercised by the No. 1 Licensing Authority shall be vested in, and may be exercised by the Transport Board." ■ "The meaning of the clause," said Mr. N. B. Spencer, chairman of directors of tlie. Passenger Transport Company, "is that the present bus service licenses cannot .be interfered with. They will have a monopoly of route as long as proper and reasonable services are given to the public. "License for Ever." "It is an indeterminate license — a license for ever," insisted Mr. Spencer, in reply to a question. "The effect- of the clause will be'that'the buses at present operating will have a monopoly of route, provided that the service is efficiently conducted."

"Will it be a monopoly for ever?" was a question put to Mr. Spencer.

Mr.. Spencer, replied in the affirmative, and specifically mentioned the Great South Road,' where his- company is

operating. ' The clause was referred to Mr. J. A. 0. Allum, chairman of the Tramways Committee for the Auckland City Council. He said that tho new legislation made provision for the bus companies now operating in Auckland and suburbs. He held that the clause meant that the bus services could poerate as if a transport board had not come into existence. Mr. Allum said that there wns nothing in tho Act to prevent extensions of tramways services considered necessary at any future time, on routes on which buses were now running. He considered that the bus services were merely confirmed in £heir position and would operate as though controlled by the No. 1 Licensing Authority. "Exclusive Eight." Mr. Alluin drew attention to another clause of the bill which states: "Subject to tho provisions of this Act the hoard upon taking over the tramways and'motor ominbus undertaking of the City Council, shall, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in any Act, have the sole and exclusive right to own, acquire, construct, maintain, ' manage, and operate tramways, and shall also have the sole and exclusive right to -maintain, manage, and operate motor and horse omnibus services and any like puDlic passenger conveyance services by any vehicle plying or standing for hire for the conveyance of passengers lit separate fares within the district." ' ■

Mr. Allum'asserted that raider'clause 58 the rights of citizens were fully and adequately provided for.

The Mayor of Mount Eden (Mr. E. H. Potter) said the intention of one clause was to give reasonable protection to existing bus services. There was no reason why the Act should not be arnendod later were it found that any clause' was not satisfactory. Services Must Continue. Mr. E. G.- Gla-rK, ex-chairman of the Ond Tree Hill Eoad Board «and a conference member of Auckland transport, expressed the opinion that one clause of the bill gave the Transport Board the saino power as was now vested ill the No. 1 Licensing Authority. It must be remembered, he said,'that it would take probably a year or two before the new board would be in a position to get into proper working order, and in the meantime transport .could not be held up, and if efficient services were to be run to the outlying districts, then some security/ of tenure must bo given to the private owners already operating. This was only fair. The tenure should be at least anything-from three to five years.