PRIVATE EVIDENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 11 August 1931, Page 2

PRIVATE EVIDENCE

STAR CHAMBER METHODS. transport bill. (The Associated Chambers of Comfiierce of New Zealand,) ■ *■ ; • • • ( Further evidence luis come to iiand of the objection that is being taken to theriTrahjjport Licensing Bill beeau.se .of the 1 ; Wide powers. that the measure : confers on the •■'Minister and •Copimisslioner -h f Transport, and because.'of- th© likelihood that the system* by the Bill will prove 'expensive •and unsatisfactory in operation. • ; ;i . ( if the .view be held that fair ans free competition can be carried too far in 'ft - matter like transport, the .proposals m the Bill for the “coordination 'Of * .transport”—viewed in the tnost fayoprahle light—cannot re r dgcmi; the dangerous bureaucratic provisions with; ivjliph they are :linked. Ope ’pf these gives the Minister of Transport ’solq -'ppwer to appoint the members' of the district and central licensing /authorities, besides recommending appointments *rom nominations 'fqr the 'Appeal Board, and op this point attrition has already been clrfjwn in’ thh 'HCiufherrt press to tjie that protesV'AshinSt ft similar P!’ avision 1 in the JiMithm passenger Trapspcijft vHlIf has Ajeep made byy the As» Bociatioh °f British Ch'amhers of Commwph.; ;A request by them for an to the Bill was chnsidered in, order that the apppinmqntß io ' tho proposed board of 7 five mepibe-i!?—appointments to he made by, tliq .Minister 'of Transport—should he guarded from influence; by, any political party. And this when {here, is no pntqpgleinen t of the position by a State-owned service, as is the case in New., Zealand. ; v ■ ’ . t i' '.Stand on Merits? • ’ It may be that the railways of New Zealand/ which' have toy make application /for a license; in with other competitive services, - will cheqrcase I,hey make out ;. lor thefnselves, giving Way ,-'if it I s sp ruled, to, a rival |ppiid4ot Hhat can ensure a more economic-' 1 service/>ut there are -features of - the- Bill that seen to load the dice, j'dr instance, -tjie Licensing Authority is required by the Bill to have regard to certajn matters affecting the applicant for a , license, and any representations' received by it at a public , sitting, ‘‘and any representations otherwise made by the Government Railways Board, local authorities or other public bodies, or any persons carrying <m transport servces of any Jdnd This means that tim Government Railways Board, local and public authorities J«d oormin persons are allowed to make their -representatipns in private! Again be it hqted that j at each public sitting .of the licensing Authority to consider an application, it shall hear ail evidence- tPpdfttTd and representations made whffifrvit deems relevant to the subject-matter of the application, “snve that at any time during such sitting it may decide not to reoeive further evidence or representations,” Thik is reminiscent of the Irish; judge who said ip Court: ‘‘Well, gentlemen, I have heard one side of the case and I am quite satisfied in mind. I don’t want to hear any evidence for the other side because it will only confuse me.”

Concerning goods services, the Minister is empowered by the Bill to prohibit through the “Gazette,” the carrying on of a good service by an owner until that owner becomes the holder of a license, and no appeal shall lie vo the Transport Appeal Board againßt any decision of the Minister or the Commissioner under this section. What are these but Star Chamber methods P It is a matter of considerable importance because’ the Minister could exercise this most extraordinary power, if he so chose,. against any/commercial man delivering only his own goods on his own vehicle.' It is conceivable that, if such'a man were unsuccessful in securing a license, he would have to hand over , the transport of . his goods to a more fortunate applicant to the Licensing Authority. This has a flavour of sheer appropriation, compelling a private owner to hand over his goods to a service with which he is not allowed to compete, —if such competition ever really existed—with a not im. possible increase in his costs in oonsoquence,

LEGAL APPEAL COURT. It is not sufficient defence of the Bill to say that its success depends op the manner in which the Act is administered, because failure, injustice and expense to the community depend on the self-same thing. One businessman said: “I cannot express ; a real opinion on the Bill until the regulations by Order-in-Council appear, and then it will be too late.’’ That is one of the main troubles with the Bill ; so many vital considerations are left to regulations. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, by its request for an amendment to the powers of tlie Minister of Transport Bill, is seeking to place a fence at the top of the precipice before there ic need for an ambulance at the bottom. The objection against tlfe general provision of the Bill that there shall be no appeal to the Courts of Law would be largely overcome if the chairman of the Transport Appeal Board were a Magistrate, or a Judge of the Supreme Court, and his two confreres