TRANSPORT DECISIONS

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 96, 17 January 1935, Page 11

TRANSPORT DECISIONS

Views of Long-distance Haulers UNFAIR CONTROL ALLEGED Comment on the recent decisions of the No. 2 Licensing Authority affecting long-distance road haulers was made yesterday by the New Zealand Road Transport Alliance, whose headquarters are in Wellington. The secretary, Mr. 11. .1. Knight, stated on behalf of the alliance that much publicity had recently been given to the refusal and restriction of a group of goods-service operators in the South Auckland district by the No. 2 Licensing Authority. "In order that the public generally shall know the principal facts,” said Mr. Knight, ”1 desire to explain that goods-service operators must obtain a license to continue their business, such licenses being annual and expiring on May 31 of each year. New Zealand is divided into nine large districts, and jurisdiction is exercised in each of these districts by a licensing authority appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Transport Licensing Act. The No. 2 Licensing Authority district comprises an area lying principally south of Auckland city, and is a part of the Auckland province. “The work of considering applications for renewal of licenses by goodsservice operators for the licensing year June 1, 1934, to May 31, 1935, has been accomplished for some time in eight licensing districts comprising the whole of New Zealand excepting the No. 2 district referred to. Satisfactory Renewals. “The result has beeu, generally speaking, quite satisfactory, renewals of licenses having been granted in practically all eases, and it is noteworthy that these renewals include very many services of tbe same type as have been refused licenses by the No. 2 Licensing Authority. “The other eight district licensing authorities are required to eonsiuei a.i applications in exactly the same manner as is the No. 2 Licensing Authority, and there is no suggestion that they have not carried out their duties in a proper manner; moreover, there has been no wholesale appeal against their decisions, which must, therefore, be regarded as generally satisfactory to all parties. "The No. 2 Licensing Authority has elected to act in an entirely different manner to its eight fellows. I do not intend, however, to comment on the reasons given for the decisions which have been published in many papers, as that matter will be the subject of consideration by a higher tribunal. With regard to the general question of control of transport, I wish to make it clear that motor transport alone is subject to control, which does not extend to either of the competitive forms of transport, rail and sea, “The position, therefore, is that throughout New Zealand, with the exception of the No. 2 Licensing Authority district (subject to appeal), motor transport services have justified their existence as ‘necessary and desirable in the public interest.’ to quote the important words included in the Transport Licensing Act, whereas neither rail nor sea interests have yet been required to justify their continued existence similarly, or even had an opportunity to do so. Serious for the Public. “It is a serious matter not only for the operators affected but for the public of New Zealand; for whom all commercial transport exists, when their facilities are threatened, and it appears clear that legislative consideration, extending to the whole transport facilities of the Dominion, will be necessary at no distant date. “There is a widespread impression that the decisions referred to are final or irrevocable,” Mr. Knight concluded. “Such is not the case, and the operators affected will carry on their sevt. rnl hnainpsspc nc •fnrmnrlv cnhta/4 f-n

“It is a serious matter not only for the operators affected but for tbe public of New Zealand; for whom all commercial transport exists, when their facilities arc threatened, and it appears clear that legislative consideration, extending to the whole transport facilities of the Dominion, will be necessary at no distant date. “There is a widespread impression that the decisions referred to are final or irrevocable,” Mr. Knight concluded. “Such is not the case, and the operators affected will carry on their sev<» ral businesses as formerly, subject to appeals) which will be lodged within tlie prescribed time', and the whole matter will be dealt with in due course by a higher tribunal.”