The Sun WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1928 THE MUDDLE OF TRANSPORT

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 433, 15 August 1928, Page 8

The Sun WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1928 THE MUDDLE OF TRANSPORT

LIKE Bret Harte’s heathen Chinee, the Auckland City Council is “peculiar for ways that are dark and tricks that are vain.” It is reported as having- finalised its views on the report of the Transport Commission, but the result of that obscure process also is to be kept a secret for a little while longer. Thus and for ever the supreme civic authority in Greater Auckland persists in a foolish policy of dawdling over a vital community problem.

Behind closed doors last evening the City Council spent three hours in discussing' the subject of transport conditions and control, but no one outside the grand circle of the city’s administration knows what was said or done in conclave. It is possible, of course, that the problem was solved with a perfect wisdom, though the probability of that result is more likely to have been the shadow of things to he, than a substantial fact. It is time the administrators of the city made up their minds on the question, nay, on the necessity of providing a better system of transport control and a more profitable service for all the people concerned. The present muddle cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. Though that state of control will be denied by tbe old brigade of councillors and resented by the new recruits, who soon yield to the influences of environment, the question has been decided at great cost and much labour by the Transport Commission. The view of the commissioners was thorough and clear. After taking everything into consideration, after giving full credit to the council oil facts of control and in an exercise of sympathy with all its difficulties, the tribunal of independent investigators recommended' the establishment of an Auckland Transport Board, providing reasonably adequate representation for city and suburban interests. It is true that the Commission, like thousands of other observers, would have preferred the creation of a municipal Greater Auckland, governed by a competent authority, and directed in complete unity toward the purpose of making the whole community a splendid unit for progress and civic service. That ideal, however, is at the moment merely a beautiful daydream. But if a thorough combination of municipal forces (such as they are) be impossible just now, surely there is enough common sense among them to recognise and discharge the duties and responsibilities for combining in a spirit of harmony on essential activities in the best interests of geographical Greater Auckland. There aan he no argument about the inability of the City Council indefinitely to carry on the present unsatisfactory and unprofitable system of transport control. Its monopoly of bus services was condemned by the Commission as an exercise of twisted power which could only be described fittingly as the very negation of justice. As the Commissioners admitted, it is not enough that the fountain of justice should be pure—it must be obviously pure. And there is no purity of justice in maintaining the City Council as the licensing authority with scope and power to smash competition. Apart from the question of control, there is pressing need for tramway extensions in order to replace buses which lose about £.40,000 a year. That loss must be stopped. The ratepayers will not authorise additional loans for more trams and new buses until it is known what the system of control is going to he. There is only one way out of the morass: the Council must realise that a transport board is essential and inevitable. And it must understand that the suburban local bodies have a right to be considered and consulted. They should confer quickly and prepare legislation for a Parliament that is dying rapidly and cannot die too soon.

TO REFORM , NOT TO PUNISH

THEBE may have been deliberate attempts, to misrepresent the purposes of the Mental Defectives Amendment Bill, as has been suggested by the Minister of Health in a speech defending the measure, hut criticism was invited and, as far as we have read, only honest criticism has been offered. Mr. Young points out that he has been assured of the heartiest support of those in touch with social problems in the Dominion. We do not doubt it. There are principles in the Bill which are to be commended. We all know that there are classes of the community which need protection against themselves, but just how far that protection should go is the point at issue. Although the Minister emphasises that the whole question has been waiting five years, it has to be remembered that the Bill, as it stands, has not been before the public five weeks: not unreasonably there is a desire to weigh all the aspects of its proposals before approving of its enactment. “If we do make mistakes,” says Mr. Young, “I think we are intelligent enough to profit by them.” Praiseworthy sentiments. But what of those who stand to lose by these mistakes? What we need is a measure with a guarantee that every possible risk of injustice has been eliminated. Somebody has described the need for speedy legislation along these lines as “clamant.” That is obviously ridiculous. Countries with four times the population of New Zealand have not even considered such legislation. It is desirable, we admit, that a Bill of this type, satisfactory to the majority of New Zealanders, should be evolved, but that is not a call for top-speed legislation.