Motor Transporters Ask Better Representation

Grey River Argus, 9 August 1948, Page 8

Motor Transporters Ask Better Representation

ON PROPOSED COORDINATION COUNCIL CHRISTCHURCH, Aug. 6. R. A. Wjtbrock, president of the Christchurch and Suburban Carriers .and Customhouse Agents’ Association, opened, a meeting attended by more than 50 representatives of the transport industry in Christchurch to discuss the Transport Law Amendment Bill. He said: “1 cannot envisage anyone who is connected with transport saying anything but that someone has made a stupid mistake, when he views the setting up of a transport co-ordin-ation council, in its suggested constitution.” He said the industry had made 'representations to the Minister on certain clauses, but these had been completely ignored, while representations by unions and other organisations who were interested parties had ueen apparently taken notice of. ■ He said: “Instead of one representative out of nine representing motor transport industry, as was originally proposed, in actual legislation we have one representative out of 14 in the personnel consisting of six heads of Government departments, five representatives of various unions, one representative of ship-owners, and • one representative of motor transport. I do not feel that I am bringing a bogy before you when I suggest that the legislation as at present drawn is definitely an attempt on the part of the Government to put into practice what has been a plank of its policy for many years. Give any Government control of transport, and you give them control of industry.” He said that of six Government representatives, and five union representatives, it might be said that some at least represented users of transport. But if users were to be represented, why was the biggest user, the farmer, omitted. It was resolved, on the motion of Mr J. M. Gold:—“That this meeting of representatives of town and country transport operators and omnibus operators protest to the Minister of Transport that the Transport Law Amendment Bill as presented to Parliament, is unfair to the licensed motor transport industry, and has implications. Because of which, unless it is the Government’s intention to socialise the industry through the operation of this Bill, the Bill should be withdrawn so that these implications cannot be read into it. Particular objection is taken to the representation on the co-ordination council, which is considered neither just nor reasonable.”