GREATER AUCKLAND CAUSE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 373, 6 June 1928, Page 15

GREATER AUCKLAND CAUSE

Further Champions Appear COMMISSION WANTS MORE TIME FURTHER champions of the Greater Auckland cause gave evidence before the Transport Commission this morning. Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., chairman, when questioned yesterday, said that he had applied for a further extension of time in wiheh the commission could prepare its report. The time originally fixed was May 26, but an extension was granted to June 11, and the further application to Cabinet is for an extension until June 25.

Before proceeding with the hearing of evidence this morning, the chairman, Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., asked whether it would not be possible to establish a uniform basis of costing for buses. Mr. Barton said he would like to see a basis suggested by the City Council and the G.O.C. The commission suggested that the costs be estimated for each bus mile or for each bus seat mile. Mr. Northcroft: You are not suggesting, sir, that Royal Commissions are likely to become a bad habit. Are you preparing for the future? Mr. Barton: I am not, but we are discussing a new industry and the statistics prepared to show its progress must be correct to be of value. Mr. Northcroft considered it a question for the Society or Accountants, but the chairman pointed out that the society would have to approach the bus proprietors before coming to any conclusion, so that it might as well be done by the commission in the first place. PROPERTY VALUES Hubert Earle Vaile, managing director of Samuel Vaile, Ltd., land agents, was called by Mr. J. Stanton (City). ITe denied that alterations in the transport system were responsible for the decline of property values and the general slackness in renting premises. “I do not want to see a transport board established,” said William John Tait, who was Mayor of Avondale from 1923 to 1927. Giving evidence in regard to the No. 1 Licensing Authority, Thomas William Mark Ashby, law and committee clerk to the Auckland City Council, said, in reply to Mr. Meredith, that he thought some of the buses taken over from the G.O.C. company last August were not licensed.

The Chairman: How does the Licensing Authority function? Mr. Meredith: If you could see it, sir, you would agree that W. S. Gilbert died much too soon.

OFFER TO TRANSPORT COMPANY Recalled by Mr. J. . Stanton (City), John Andrew Charles Allum, of the Auckland City Council gave evidence referring to Mr. Spencer’s testimony relating: to an alleged offer to purchase the G.O.C. services.

“About the end of November last,” said Mr. Allum, “I had an unofficial interview with Messrs. Macky, Spencer and Dunderdale. The proposition submitted for my consideration was that the Passenger Transport Company should take over from the City Council the bus service formerly operated by the G.0.C., and that the company should purchase the G.O.C. buses at the valuation placed on them by the City Council.

I pointed out to the representatives of the Passenger Transport Company that the proposition could not be entertained as the council had purchased the G.O.C. undertaking well above valuation, and because it was the council’s policy to operate feeder buses so they could scarcely be expected to favour the granting of licences for through services. “Messrs. Macky and Dunderdale returned shortly after the conclusion of this interview,” continued Mr. Allum, “and asked for the council’s assistance in meeting their solicitor’s charges in regard to transport negotiations. Mr. Macky appeared very upset over the amount awarded by the Arbitration Court, and, knowing that the City Council was just as displeased at having to take over the service, I suggested to him that he should request the council to call the whole business off and take the G.O.C. service back again. Mr. Macky then informed me that the Finance Corporation would not permit such an action as it desired to get its money.” CITY LICENSING AUTHORITY Referring to the position of the City Council as licensing authority, witness pointed out that the council operated subject to the Transport Appeal Board. While the council was prepared to continue as the licensing authority, it was not concerned to retain that position and would not object to the licensing being done by the Transport Appeal Board direct, or by any other body with judicial qualifications. Witness could not recommend the acceptance of a traffic control board, as such a body might be subject to popular prejudice and partisanship. 41 YEARS AN AUCKLANDER Greater Auckland as visualised by Sir Arthur Myers, K.C., formerly Mayor of Auckland, was brought forward as an ideal by Alfred Seymour Bankart, who has been 41 years a resident of Auckland. Witness considered that the boundaries of the City of Auckland should be extended so as to include all local districts between the harbours and between the Tamaki and the Whau. There should be one strong body administering affairs between those boundaries. “ ladvise this,” said Mr. Bankart, “on the ground of economy, which would be obtained by the reduction of overhead expenses and greater efficiency in management. A large city is as a rule in a position to employ better equipped officers than small ones.” Witness considered that all municipal departments, such as by-laws, streets, traffic, libraries and parks, should be under one control as would be trading concerns, such as water and transport. That would tend to lessen, if not to destroy, the jealousy and illwill, which manifested itself when local bodies dealt with the city or even among themselves. “I do not favour the setting up of separate boards to deal with public utilities,” concluded Mr. Bankart, “the greater the number of boards in general the greater the expense. BETTER COUNCILLORS Mr. Bankart preferred not to answer Mr. Nortlicroft’s question as to whether he was satisfied with the personnel of the present City Council. Mr. Barton: Let us get at the point this way. Do you consider the average personnel of the average public body an argument for or against the strength of democratic government? Mr. Bankart: I think the latter. Mr. Barton: Would better men come forward to take office in the Greater Auckland Council? Mr. Bankart: I think the honour of assisting in the management of a Greater Auckland would lead men to make greater personal sacrifices in its services. On being asked by Mr. J. Stanton (city) whether he thought the commissions’ deliberations would affect the actions of local bodies when considering proposals to join Greater Auckland,

Mr. Bankart said he hoped they would. Mr. Northcroft: It would be a unique commission if it had that effect. Witness: It is a unique commission. THE TRAMWAYS DIRECTOR Gharles Rhodes said that he was at one time a director of the Auckland Tramways Company, .Ltd., and in negotiations for sale to the city. He considered that at the time of the purchase the assets were in fair order and the price paid by the counci# fair and reasonable. Witness said that in the company’s time there had always been difficulty in dealing with local authorities who had delegated powers to it, and such a central authority as the City Council would have been welcomed. Witness, for similar reasons to those advanced by Mr. Bankart, advocated the foundation of a Greater Auckland Council bounded by the two harbours, Avondale on the west, and at the outside Otahuhu on the north. “I am opposed to the setting up of a transport board,” said Mr. Rhodes. “I firmly believe that the announcement by the city of a transport policy to be carried out by appropriate officers is the true way to overcome present difficulties.”