MOTOR-TRAFFIC CONTROL

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 782, 1 October 1929, Page 13

MOTOR-TRAFFIC CONTROL

DEPARTMENTAL POWER AND TRANSPORT BILL MOUNT EDEN’S REVIEW Would the effect of the Transport Bill mean the centralisation of power in Wellington under what would practically be political patronage? DEPORTING on his survey of the Bill last evening to the Mount Eden Borough Council, Mr. J. M. Melville declared he had gained an impression of this possibility. Members of the council considered the outcome of the Bill such an important question that they decided to meet specially to investigate the measure. The meeting will take place tomorrow evening. A point made clear by Mr. Melville was his fear that motor transport would be ruled in its essential aspects departmentally. Associated with the Railway Department, the control, Mr. Melville said, could possibly become too large a power for the good of New Zealand. Mr. Melville granted that the Bill was a first step toward a comprehensive legislation on motor control. This, he said, was long overdue. The separate Statutes already existing on the question would be embodied, in the main, in the Act. There were amendments id view to existing regulations, but Mr. Melville said several aspects of the Bill would probably be regarded as dangerous from the viewpoint of local bodies. Close investigation would be necessary. The Bill would confirm the setting up of the Transport Board and the administrative powers of the Minister of Transport. Motoring questions and the Tramways Act were also included. “Should the Bill be passed,” Mr. Melville continued, “it would mean practically the centralisation of the control at Wellington. POWERFUL DEPARTMENT “The result of this tendency toward centralisation would be the creation, along with the Railway Department, of an extremely powerful new department. The transport of New Zealand, including the railways, would be, in effect, under full control. That is tlie aspect which needs attention.” Mr. Melville mentioned licensing regulations, especially in connection with local bodies, and taxation. Appointments to the licensing authority proposed, he went on to say, would be made by the department, and the elective system would be abandoned. The appointments would be by Gov-ernor-in-Council by the recommendation of the Minister. To his view', the Appeal Board w’ould also be appointed departmentally. “This centralisation could result in what would be practically political patronage,” the speaker added. “If we, for instance, did not support the right people and the right interests, we could possibly receive not the proper representation for our interests. That is an aspect which will need to be w r atched. VETO OF BY-LAWS “The power of veto in by-laws would be. given to the Minister. “The department would be vested in wide powers for the framing of regulations.” Mr. G. L. Taylor asked if there were points on w'hich the council needed to protest. Mr. Melville suggested full consideration by a coinmittea or a conference with neighbouring local bodies, such as Mount Albert and Onehunga Councils and the One Tree Hill Road Board. “What I w r ould protest against,” he said, “is the vesting of so much powder in the department. With the Railway Department, it might become too powerful for the good of the Dominion. If members on the Transport Board were elected from the highways districts, it w T ould be different. “There is an argument in favour of the Bill that it would protect the railways. We, as citizens, have to decide if it is desirable to protect the Railway Depai’tment.” Mr. Melville believed that the districts should elect members on the licensing authorities, as, under the proposal, such organisations would have to do simply what the department desired. A letter from Mr. G. C. Munns, M.P., for Roskill, asked advice of the council’s views on the Bill. The council will decide on its opinions, according to a list of the main features, to be presented at the special meeting.