A Little Talk on Omnibuses

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 102, 21 July 1927, Page 9

A Little Talk on Omnibuses

MR. WILFORD’S RILL AN UNEXPECTED USE (THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. Personal and political opinion did not appear to count for a great deal in the second reading of Mr. T. M. Wilford’s Motor Omnibus Traffic Bill in the Plouse of Representatives tonight, when Labour’s resistance to Mr. H. Holland’s Religious Exercises in Schools Bill became manifest by a hold-up upon Mr. Wilford’s measure till it was too late to introduce the next order of the day on the list. Some members made hard going of their speeches on the bus regulations. Some discoursed freely for 30 minutes in platitudes which fell upon the irresponsive ears of weary members. It was only delaying the introduction of Mr. Holland’s Bill till next privatemembers’ day, when an effective stonewall will probably be engineered. Members who talked most expressed agreement to the second reading of the Bill, but displayed no anxiety to let discussion be taken. Mr. Wilford, in moving the second reading, described his Bill as the most democratic measure ever introduced into the House. He dissociated himself from the original Act, but confined his explanation to his desire to eliminate the Transport Appeal Board. He cited a specific case where licence for extra buses had been granted in the Hutt Valley and the Transport Appeal Board upset this. On one side of the presiding judge, as chairman of the board, sat representatives of bus-owners and railways, both voters against the appellant busovner, while on the other side of the judge sat representatives of the City Council and other local bodies, two sure voters for the appellant. The voting was even, and the judge had to pit his opinion against the Wellington City Council and all the surrounding local authorities because the voting had been even, and the judge, without complete knowledge of the transport requirements of the Hutt Valley, had prevented an extra bus from operating after the local authorities had granted a licence. Mr. H. E. Holland: Is it not dangerous to wipe out the principle of the right of appeal? Mr. Wilford: Yes, where the safety of the individual is concerned; but the licensing authority is elected by the people, and is less likely to err. Mr. A. Harris went further than the question of appeal, and said that the original Act was fundamentally wrong. If this Amending Bill had been calculated to alter the constitution of the licensing authority to an independent tribunal, he would acclaim it as a beneficial measure. I Mr. M. J. Savage said that if people

in Auckland had to place themselves at the tender mercies of the licensing authority he wondered how suburban authorities would get on. He did not believe in insane competition, but it was over the odds to give the licensing authority the complete and final say. Patching up would not rectify the mistake that had been made by the original Bill. The thing should be left as it was till some substitute as a whole could be secured. Satirical reference to the successful hold-up of the Bill was made at the closing stages of the debate by Mr. J. A. Lee, who referred to the satisfactory manner in which the subject had been aired. Mr. Wilford, with a smile, expressed surprise and gratification at the magnificent manner in which the Bill had been received. (Laughter.) The only member who did not see

the humour of the proceedings was Mr. H. Holland, who watched the clock pass 12.30 a.m., after which no new business can be introduced. A few Government members dis-

sented to the Bill and the second reading was lost by 39 votes to 15.