THE TRAMWAYS BILL

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 987, 30 November 1910, Page 4

THE TRAMWAYS BILL

PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF - REPRESENTATIVES. 1 AN ALL-NIGHT. SITTING. . After The Dominion went to press yesterday niornirig, the House of Representatives wrestled with tho 'various problems of the Tramways Bill, and it was 7 a.m. before tho Bill-'had. been passed through its final stages. At Clause 2 (dealing with electric tram-drivers' certificates), Mr. Herdmail moved a proviso that tho necessity for a certificate should not apply when a striko was in progress. Tho Minister said he did not for a moment contemplate the possibility of a strike,, but even if a striko did occur it would not get the support of the public. ' ''. _ " ■ ''■ '. ' ■•'•■• The amendment .w-as' rejected by 33 to 17. ■ ■ ' ■■'■ . ; ■ ' ■

Mr. Wilford moved an addition to the proposed powers of the : Minister to appoint ono or more persons to rnembors of the Board of Examiners, ill addition to those persons '.already constituting it, by the addition of'a proviso that one of the -persons shall bo an electrical engineer in charge of a tramway concern. '

Tho Minister accepted the amendment. '

At 1.55 a.m., Mr. Anderson moved to report progress. ' ' ' '- . Mr. Glover said there was a limit to all- human endurance. He hoped tho Minister would accept the motion. The motion was lost by 31 to 1 20. On the' motion of Mr. Davey, the date of closing applications for motor-, men's certificates was • altered from December 31 to December '24. '■'■: Mr. Wilford moved' to. delete tho provision that a' motorman could, not obtain. a certificate if he had...been dismissed for misconduct. Tho Minister said tho . motorman could work .off the disqualification by starting again as a conductor. The amendment was rejected by 36 te 9. Mr. Wilford then moved to strike out Sub-Clause 6 of Clause' 2, which provides that after .January 1, 1912, every person who acts as a driver of any. car, etc.,' without being the holder of a certificate, and. tho promoters of the tramway employing him, shall bo liable to a lino not exceeding £o for every day the - driver' acts. "It would be impossible for any. City Council, in tho event of a strike,", said Mr. Wilford, "to" put on men: who were lit to drive if this clauso. was 1 allowed to pass." ' " '■.■•- ■.._■•

The proposal was rejected by. 32' to 16 At 2.40 a.m. the Minister intimated nrmly that it was intended to put the Jiill through boforo adjourning, , and a tired and wavering House set to work again.

Tho clauso as amended was agreed to by/32 votes to 17., ■ ' ■ • '

Mr. He.rdman objected to Sub-Clause 1 of Clause 3, which deals with tho, inspection of .tramways. This was the clause, he .said, which took tho control of tramivays but' of the hands of tho municipalities.., Ho moved that it be struck out. ■ : : • .'...

A prior amendment was moved by Mr. Luke to limit the .power,,of the Minister, to,.inspection .of tramways -in course of cohstriiction.,'■ ','... : ; '..'... Tlio ani'endment'-. ( ■' by- .29 votes' t0,'19.. ~'!,''"...'. '. -..":'. ".}...''

At 3 a.iri.'Mr.Jas. Allen moved that progress be reported,' but' the' motion was. lost, voting being: Ayes 16Noes', .33. . ' Mr.. Herdman's motion .that! SubClauso 1 be struck but was then put and was' rejected by. 29 votes to 19. Mr. Wilford said that the sub-clauso which provides ■ that the Minister may order alterations, repairs, or additions to'bo made to;cars. seemed fa. give the, Minister power to'brder. the'construction ot-50 , new 'cars' if he went for a '.walk when; his liver was out of order (and that'was nearly every day). (Laughter.) Ho thought tho Minister 1 had the power at present ' despito any advice tho Minister had received. ' .- ■The Minister said he was prepared .to delete the reference to additions to the plant, rollmg.. stock, etc., and limit it to to ofder■'alterafiohs-and' repairs.-•This'was agreed.to V.. *r'V -"' , Mr. Herdman-said that.the - 'person authorised by the Minister could" still compel any-alterations. The' Government sought to override the powers of the' municipalities. '■" ■•'' ■"■■'•: The Hon. R. M'Kenzie said he did not think there was anything unfeasonablo m.tho Bill.' ' ■'■' ■"• ■

, Mr. "Horries remarked that- it had just struck him--that there was a'coniiectipn between- this clause and ' tho Public Works- Bill. The Minister could compel them to have alterations' until tL S[ took ,IIS Metrical water'power." ■■ The sub-clause was adopted as amended, the voting'being 27—21 ' _ Clause- 4, which requires the Public Works engineer's certificate, before a tramway, is opened,- was adopted on the voices. ...•.'■

At Clause 5, which gives the Gover-nor-m-Gouncir power to make overriding regulations covering 'a wide scope Mr. Luke moved to restrict tho operation ot the clause to ..privately-owned tramways. . The amendment was rejected by 9 9 votes to 14. ■ .■.■'■-.

Mr. Wilford'objected' to Sub-olauso (c) of Clause o, which fixes the maximum number of passengers that may be-earned-on any particular route, 'and asked that a specification be inserted —that the. number.shall not exceed twice the seating,.capacity.' The Minister compromised by agreeing to a limit of. 75' per cent, over th'e

seating capacity. ; ... .", ■ ■'■ . Iu reply to Mr.. .Wright,'the Minister said .ho. had no 'intention- of con-' domning palace ears. ■:. .-.-.' -,'-.-

Considerable discussion took place oh Sub-clause 2 of Clause 5, dealing withregulations. " -

Tho Minister said if anyone could suggest something better than the clause as it stood ho would bo prepared to accept it. ■

Mr. Wilford said ho intended to enter a final protest against tho clause which provided that the 'Minister might issue, regulations to over-ride Orders-in-Council: It was an.outrageous-proposal that tho, Minister should-bo allowed by regulation to over-ride an.-. Order-iii-Couneil made, years ago, and under which loans ,-had • been raised on the plant, etc., of the corporations. , : Mr. Herdman moved a proviso that nothing in this- section shall: be deemed to rolato to any Order-in-Council in force at tho time of tho/. passin'g of :tllis Act. ..'■■-■■.. ':' ■~■':.:;; '-.'..

The proviso was rejected by'. 27 to 13! The Minister said' he- would consult tho law draughtsman again* in regard to tho clause, but ho would hot 'postpone consideration'of tho" clause.": '•'■

Clause 5, as amended, was agreed to by 25 to 15.' ■ . ''; ■■'.

Clause 6, .covering, tho...functions .of Appeal Boards, was adopted as amended in Committee,-and Clauses 7 and 8 were also accepted without discussion. On tho motipn of the Minister, Clause 9, which deals with car report books, was deleted.

In regard to Clause 10, giving. ;the Minister power to inquire -into tramway accidents, and suspend the driver if .ho thinks fit, Mr. Fisher moved the addition of a. proviso thaV.any> employed charged under this, section may. appeal to the board. sot -iip under Section 6. Tho-'" proviso- was lost by-. 23 to 15.' : Clauso 12, providing for the licensing of cars, was agreed to by 23 to 14.. Section "B," which amended clause 9 of. the Act,, to., enable, small works to be.carried put.without.tibtainiiiß tho sanction-.of-the ratepayers;-, was deleted. '■': •-' ■."■■■ '-:;.;. '.. ..'

The following new clauso was added on the motion of ./the Minister: "It

shall'be ■ lawful for the promoters of a ■tramway- to run minimum-fare cars— that is, special cars carrying exclusively passengers, o.ver two or pore sections at one- faro for the whole journey: Provided that such fare shall not exceed ilie 'aggregate of thd fares'chargeable under the authorising order for the sections 'comprised in such journey, and that ■tlio, minimum-fare cars arc plainly distinguishable from the ordinary cars, and also that such minimum-faro cars shall not be included for the purpose of computing tlio minimum service of cars prescribed by the authorising ordor." ■ The Bill was reported with amendments.

THE THIRD READINC. Speaking on the third reading of the Bill, Mr. T. M..Wilford briefly summed up tlio changes made in the Bill since it , was brought down for its second reading. Although the Bill in its nature and scopo was obnoxious still, some important changes had been made, which had taken the sting out of many of tbo clauses. . Ho could not help thi ' ing that tho.Mmister did not recognise how much ho had given- in some of the amendments.. The Minister had given way in various directions, , and ■.there had been uo acrimonious discussions. Air. \\llford : proceeded to deal with the principal'amendments made. Mr. llusscll (Avon) thought the patience of the House had been.tried by the memberior.the.Hutt, who had kept members there all night for nothing, although ho was trying to take* credit to himsolr for having turned tho Bill inside out. . . - Mr 'Fisher said all the city.members loimd themselves in considerable difficulty because they wanted* to protect the interests of tho employees and at the same .time.to. protect the municipal councils. ' • Sir.Joseph Ward: A very difficult matter.''..'.Mr. M'Laren said that in his judgment the Bill was'decidedly improved, tie hoped the Government' would use with consideration tho powers it had taken. Ho trusted that in the administration of the Act the Minister would show the utmost consideration to the municipalities. The Prime Minister said the position ot the municipality was simply that of the employer. He' could not see why any of the municipalities should object to.being, brought into line with the other employers of the country. Ho thought the Bill would do an immense amount of good. Tho Bill would be valuable to the people and to the em-and.-.it would not be inimical to tho interests of the municipalities. Mr. Hemes (Tauranga) said what he objected to was the germ of centralisation. He had heard no complaints from the.municipal tramways, but there were plenty from the railways, wliieh were in a seething-state of discontent. It was a. slight on themunicipal corporations to tel them that tho Government had had to look after the. employees becauso they (the corporations) could not. The only cause of.trouble- had been in Auckland and -he believed the Bill was .directed ■wholly at the Auckland Tramway Company. The Government was making towards taking over the whole of tho tramways,- and ousting tho municipalities. He thought the municipalities wero better able to manage the trams than the Government. *

The Hon. R. M'Kenzie said the Government had no intention of centralising'the'tramways. ■.' On the whole, ho thought , the amendments made had improved the Bill.."- ' . ;

"The Bill was 'read a third time and passed , ; 7 ■"■ ' "■ ■ .■■'■,. ■■..'■■' •

DEBATE IN THE COUNCIL.

Tho second reading of the Tramways' Amendment Bill 'in the Legislative. Council was moved by ; , ■: ' ' "The^Utoriley-Genera.!,' the.Bill at some length.'. He was sure' tho supervision of: the Government would not be tyrannical. ','•'•.■'" ' '~_£¥; Ho"-'- "«'.' C. -'F. . : Carncross (Tfirfinaki) ■ urged "that ih©- Bill Vas whittling away tho powers: of tie local bodies;'. It'seenied' : to himvthat some of'the,-clauses wore tyi-apnical, if ho could use. thV term.. He also 'objected to the divided control. The money of the ratepayers had paid for. the rolling stock, etc., and ho did not see'why an outsider should come in and order alterations and repairs without.''con-, suiting , ' 'the 'City'' Council. Wellington hada.magnificeilt service, of which the city', might ,bo proud.. ' Tho only trouble was occasioned by over-crowding, but this weni;'on on the Government Railways. The whole tendency of the Bill was to whittle away and befittlo tho powers and functions of,'tho local authorities. The Bill went altogether too far, and if passed, would not redound to our credit.

The Hon. H. F. Wigram (Canterbury) said he-did not oppose the Bill in its entirety, 'but there were certain amendments, he proposed. to movo at tho proper .time.. The Bill proposed'to take away all the. work that had been done. by. local authorities and vest it in the, Government. He did not know whether":an. amendment would be acceptable" that tho Government should pay for tho tramways if they took them over. If the Government intended to usurp' the responsibility of, tho local body,'they should undertake the financial responsibility. The Bill, he urged, was aimed at one particular board, Aiickla'nd, but all through it there was a tendency'to' usurp the authority of the local boards. If there was any complaint aboat overcrowding, brakes, and;speed,, a small Bill couhl easily be brought in , to deal with these matters. He was entirely against tho Government stepping m and usurping the functions of tho local authority. The Government was no more qualified to run tho tramways than tho local bodies were. He did not- think tho same class of p?ople would take an interest, in the trams if they were subjected to interference by the Government. ..Dr. Eindlay: The motdrmen ask for the-Bill.:.

•Mr. ..Wigratii: The Government v-ill not get better motormen than the corporations have.. It was his intention, continued Mr. AVigram, to move later that nothing in this Act shall apply to any tramway, owned or managed by any local authority. This would. meet the case. (Laughter.) Dr. Fimllay: 'You. had better move that tlie Bill be read this day six months. (Laughter.) _ Mr; Wigram: This motion would not prevent its application to the Duncdin or Auckland lines. The debate was adjourned on the motion of the Hon. C; Hi Mills.