“WE WANT A BOARD”

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 356, 17 May 1928, Page 13

“WE WANT A BOARD”

Only Transport Solution

MR. POTTER BEFORE COMMISSION

IN the opinion of the outside local bodies the only solution to the present transport difficulties is the setting up of a Transport Board, giving co-ordination and co-operation, and removing the present causes of hostility. Mr. E. H. Potter, Mayor of Mt. Eden, refused to be shifted from this attitude when he was in the box before the Transport Commission yesterday and to-day.

Mr. E. H, Potter, Mayor of Mount Eden since 1923, and a councillor since 1906, as well as a member of several other bodies, including the Hospital Board and Power Board, said that transport had been subject to controversy for several years, and the provisions in 1922, 1923 and 1924 were quite incapable of dealing with the traffic, as the result of which the bus competition started, was followed by the legislation, and had now resulted in general disssatisfaction, the suburban residents being against the people of the inner area controlling their traffic. He referred to the promise to give tram extensions to Mount Eden and the fact that £93000 had been spent in laying down concrete roads on the routes over £3,000 of which was specially in preparation for trams. “There is no justification for any statement that Mount Eden has been hostile,” remarked Mr. Potter, “and no evidence could be brought to support it.” Mount Eden had spoken for other suburbs as the senior borough. Witness advocated the Transport Board scheme, and was confident that the present difficulties and troubles would be removed by such a step. The great majority of the local bodies approved board control, he said. Replying to Mr. Johnstone counsel for the city Mr. Potter said he was not looking for limelight. In reply to a question he went to some length in describing the steps taken to secure a water board. “Apparently I turned on the tap when I mentioned water." commented Mr. Johnstone. “It would have been very welcome a couple of months ago," remarked witness amid laughter. Witness said Mount Eden had actively opposed the omnibus legislation. The suburbs had got transport for the first time and wanted the private buses which gave it then to continue. SUPPORTED OPPOSITION Continuing his evidence this morning, Mr. Potter said there was sufficient population outside the tram area to support, bus services. He did not think the Omnibus Act suitable an instrument of the City Council, but he thought it would be suitable to a Transport Board. He would licence private services in given areas on specified distances. This was the same as was now done in the case of Mr. Keys’s service and the Passenger Transport Co., who did not affect the tramways. What would you have done to meet the bus competition? asked Mr. Johnstone. “I would have put on buses to compete, and would have reduced tram fares,” replied witness. “Hid you not know that the city had put on extra buses and reduced fares?" —Witness said he knew there had been some action, but it was only after the opposition services were firmly established. The reduction in fares was not a very serious one. You would have had war to the knife?—Yes. How do you account for the fact that you assisted the opposition by everything in your power?—We only assisted them because the outer areas had no transport. They have none to-day. Have you ever offered any assistance to the City Council? Witness said they put down a road to tramway levels and suggested tram extensions. Later they endeavoured to get a conference on the transport board idea. Mr. Johnstone suggested that this was no help at all. It was years after the trouble started. Witness: The trouble was still on them, and it is now. Mr. Potter refused to be shifted in any way from his advocacy of a transport board. LITTLE COURTESIES "Witness expressed the opinion that the working costs on the system and the number of passengers both allowed of improvements that would enable reduced fares. He was of opinion that under a board the penal fare could be largely avoided. Referring to services to the northern suburbs on the old G.O.C. routes, Mr. Johnstone asked witness for the name of the person who would run services with or without penal fares. Witness would not or could not give the name. “Let us have his name and we’ll get in touch with him this morning," remarked Mr. Johnstone. A short time afterwards Mr. Johnstone referred to “your little borough.” “Why the ‘little’ borough?” inquired Mr. H. M. Rogerson, counsel for Mount Eden. “I think it is the third largest in Hew Zealand. What would you call the others?" Mr. V. R. Meredith, counsel for several bodies: It is just a gratuitous slap. “Hoes it hurt you?" inquired Mr. Johnstone in solicitous terms. Mr. Rogerson said they were not affected at all. But “borough” was enough. Mr. Johnstone: After the three days of abuse we have had I thought I was perfectly courteous. Witness said that if Mount Albert and Onehunga stood out of any proposal to form a Transport Board in 1921 or 1922 a board would not have been possible. Mr. Johnstone said these two bodies stood out when a few years ago, on taking over the trams, the City Council asked local bodies to meet them on the proposal to form a Transport Board. Mount Eden had not even replied. Mr. Rogerson: And the city scheme was even more nebulous than you assert ours is. “What ground was there for saying the move was political humbug?” inquired Mr. Johnstone. Witness: There was. The council never intended to follow it up. Without unity there was no possible hope?—There was no intention of bringing unity about.

Witness pointed out that “political humbug” was not his expression. He would say the city was not sincere. It thought it had a gold mine. Mr. Rogerson: They were Mr. Xorthcroft’s words. You are putting them into the mouth of this witness. “The witness adopts them readily enough,” commented Mr. Johnstone. NOT HIS OWN OPINION Cross-examined at length witness said any conflicting opinions he may have expressed might be due to his own and the other opinions of local bodies conflicting. He had commented on the desire of the Socialistic section of the community wanting one large local body to control and finance all transport, and was then opposed to it, but that was not inconsistent with his present expressions. He believed the board should take over all the internal services, and license those plying in the outside areas. Witness said he had given interviews in which he expressed the opinion of the majority of local bodies, though these were given under his name with no indication that they were not his own views. On certain aspects he had sometimes thus expressed remarks which were against his own views, but they were published as his own. Mr. Johnstone: Well, perhaps I can rightly call that political humbug. “Really the question of the local bodies taking over the transport system did not arise until the lawyers got to work on it?” questioned Mr. Johnstone. “There was nothing of the sort,” denied Mr. Potter. Continuing this afternoon Mr. Potter did not give a definite reply to a suggestion that the outside local bodies did not consider a board to take over the system as well as the control until a couple of months ago. He said their main discussion was the lack of service to outside districts. “We were not then concerned with the actual city system of trams,” remarked witness. LIVELY PASSAGES Mr. Johnstone challenged witness to give him one single instance before March where anyone suggested takingover the tramway undertaking. The reply was again indefinite. Johnstone asked witness if he still thought he was right in expressing publicly, as his own, views which were contrary to his own. Witness: Yes. “I want to know, because I understand you are standing for Parliament,” remarked Mr. Johnstone. Pie suggested that the first reference to taking over services was late in March last. Mr. Potter said the idea- had been advanced last November, when Greater Auckland and the Metropolitan Hoard were being discussed by local bodies. Ho you suggest that that board has anything whatever to do with this Transport Board?—Yes. “Well, you amaze me,” remarked Mr. Johnstone. “I think the Metropolitan Board will have something to do with transport,” remarked witness, “carticularly after next election.” At this stage the answers were getting very long, and Mr. Johnstone said witness was getting away from the subjects and he would insist on gettii:g replies to his questions. The chairman, Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., told witness to be quiet. I-Ic then said he must answer questions, bi c he would be given every opportunity and protection to explain himself. (Proceeding.)