OPPOSED.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19158, 15 November 1927, Page 9

OPPOSED.

CHRISTCHURCH TRAMWAYS BILL. PAPARUA COUNTY AND THE BOARD. [THBPEISS Special Bmioe.] WELLINGTON, November 14. This evening the House of Representatives devoted itself mainly to tho remaining Local Bills on the Order Paper. Opposition was quickly shown to the Christchurch Tramway District Act Amendment Bill, which was in charge of Mr D. G. Sullivan, who explained the main provisions of tho Bill clause by clause. In regard to the alteration of street levels, he explained the position in the Bill as amended, and referred to the dangerous situation in connexion with traffic. Mr Jones Opposes Bill. Mr D. Jones raised strong objection to the Bill, which, he said, was open to a great deal of discussion. The whole question amounted to this: that the Tramway Board wishes to make the Paparua County Council pay for tho liability of the Board. To do this they were endeavouring to get an Act of Parliament. There was no evidence supporting the statement that tho levels were laid down by the Board. Mr Sullivan: Yes. Mr Jones: And even if there was it has no bearing on the case. The county had no legal liability whatever, but an attempt was being made to- put legal liability on them through the Bill. Mr Jones went into the history of the matter for years past, and stated that the tramway road had always been a gutter. The Bbard had placed their line inches below the water-line, and that had made it impossible to be anything else but a gutter. An hon. member: Has the Bill gone through tho Local Bills Committee T Mr Jones: Yes, but there was a very small attendance when it went through. Mr Sullivan: That is not correct. • Mr Jones:. Before the Committee the chairman of the Board had stated that it was not intended to make this legislation retrospective, but that promise had been broken in the Bill. Mr Sullivan: The chairman denies that. Mr Jones: No, the chairman does not deny it, and the secretary has evaded the point in every letter that has been sent to me. I pointed it out to him, and he never made that point. He still evaded it. There is another strange thing; the clause that is in this Bill has never been advertised in the newspapers. This clause was brought in after the Bill was introduced. An hon. member, to Mr Jones: The clause was slipped into the BUI to put tho liability on the County Council. Mr T. W. Rhodes: How did that happen? "A Chopping Block." Mr Jones: "That is not for me to oxplain. The clause is in the Bill, and I say that no Government would ever dream of bringing in such legislation as this, yet this Bill asks the House to do what no Government dare to do in general legislation. The honourable fentleman was endeavouring to do this y a side wind." As to the road being dangerous, Mr Jones said, he believed there had never been an accident on it. The South Island Motor Association would not say that the road was dangerous, though they had been asked to do so. The Council had put such a fine road down in bitumen that now no'one travelled on the tramway, and the Board was losing on that. He contravorted in detail the advocacy of the Bill by Mr Sullivan. A small county was to be made the chopping block of the rich Tramway /Board and the Highways Board. It was doubtful if the clauses objected to were local legislation. If passed into law, the clauses would affect other local bodies throughout Now Zealand. The heavy cars of the Christchurch Tramway Board were already crushing up the fine bitumen road that had been put down. Another point was that the Tramway Board wished to override the Omnibus Act. That would suit the hon. member in connexion with his own borough. At this stage the Prime Minister intervened. He said there had been an understanding that contentious Local Bills should be postponed until the noncontentious Bills were out of the roaa, and he did not know this was a contentious Bill. It was agreed that the debate should be postponed until the other Bill* were dealt with.

Level BaiMd. Mr Armstrong said it must be admitted that there was no legal liability on, either side until an accident occurred and somebody was killed or injured. The Bill proposed to set up a tribunal. Anyone out of a mental hospital who saw the road must admit that it was dangerous, and should be dealt' with immediately. He produced a photograph indicating the danger. Because the law did not know who was responsible, it was proposed to set up this tribunal. The Board laid its tramway on the level of the road at the time. The Council, however, made their new road a foot higher. The Local Bills Committee had gone into the matter thoroughly, and had heard evidence, including that of Mr Jones. The Bill passed through the committee without any opposition at all. Mr Jones: That's wrong.,,,Mr Armstrong said it was absolutely certain that there would be an accident, and it was better to take action before someone was killed or injured. They should set up a tribunal. The clause provided only that justice should be. done. The highest cross fall in such a road that was regarded as safe was one inch to the foot, but here there was a cross fall of sir times that, and which all engineers would regard as highly dangerous. Someone interested in vested interests had been pulling the strings, and was using the hon. gentleman. The Tramways Board was not asking to be contracted out; it was asking to be contracted in with a tribunal to decide as to liability. As a matter of fact, the Ohristchurch Tramway Board was the only Board in New Zealand that could not do what it was asking. They asked for the same privilege that every tramway undertaking in New Zealand had under the present law, and the licensing authority was not objecting to it. Mr A. Harris pointed out that an attempt was being made to override the Motor Omnibus Act, which the Christchurch authorities had formerly approved. Mr Geo. Forbes said if there were to be any relaxations in regard to buses they should be made general. Mr Kyle said the road under the conditions that prevailed now was in a less -dangerous condition than it had been for 16 years previous to the laying of the bitumen. Mr Kyle said he had a letter from the Town Clerk of the Christchurch City Council asking him to oppose Clause 7 (the bus clause). Mr Sullivan interjected that an agreement had subsequently been reached after several amendments to the original draft.

. Objection to Tribunal. The Hon. Mr Rolleston (Minister for Justice) raised an objection to Clauses 5 and 12 regarding the tribunal proposed to be set up, a. Judgo and two assessors. In cases when it was proposed to appoint a Judge it was usual to consult the Department of Justice. It was a rule that Judges or Magistrates should not bo called upon to so aot away from their ordinary functions without such consultation because it would create a precedent. Ho suggested that the tribunal should be eroated, not as stated, but under the Arbitration Act of 1908. Mr E. P. Leo asked if the Public Works Department had beon considered in regard to tho special legislation. He objected to the special general legislation sought to be introduced in a Local Bill. Mr McCombs spoke in support of the Bill. He said if an accident occurred the proposed action would be unnecessary because the liability would be determined by the Supreme Court. Those opposing the clauso wore asking them to wait till an accident occurred. Mr H. Holland (Christchurch) pointed out that when a Tramway Board went out of its district somo miloi to compete against private ei>t«rpriso, it was going a little too far. N.itwithst.vi.ling what the member for KUesmoro had said, he (Mr Holland) had a food knowledge of the Toad, and th«ra v&s a real dangor of serious accident. Mr nullivan'a Reply. Mr Sullivan commenced his reply al 11.30 p.m. He pointed oat that, in reference to the general legislation, prantically the whole of the hginlatioa under which the Board operated was legislation that amendod general AKs, so that no new precedent was being created. There were continuous hiw.k* downs in the service that necessivated tho sending out of buses. In the otlicr cities this could be done promptly '»y two officers of the oity corporation over t the telephone, because in those cities the Council owned the tramways and was also the licensing authority. As to tho levels, he had evidence domonsfa-at-ing absolutely that the tramway tm ' laid to levels supplied by the Templeton Rood Board. The Christchurch City Engineer had stated that the road was very dangerous indeed, and that sooner or later an accident would *cour. The second reading was agreed to on the voices. The Bill was then eommitteu. Mr Jones at onoe moved to report progress: Mr Coates suggested that Mr Sullivan move to report progross. It was quite evident that the Bill had- to be debated clause by clause. There wero some clauses that he himself would like to look into. If the hon. member moved to report progress he would bo given another opportunity to bring the Bill on. Mr Sullivan agreed, progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again.