Transport Board to Stay for Full Term

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 816, 9 November 1929, Page 8

Transport Board to Stay for Full Term

PARLIAMENT'S VIEW NORTH SHORE AUTHORITY Press Association PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Friday. In putting through the Traniport Bill today the feeling of the House of Representatives was tested on the question of making the Auckland Transport Board elective a year earlier. The proposal was rejected by 27 votes to 22. The Hon. W. A. Veitch, in moving the second readies of the Bill, said the measure was a very short one containing only five clauses providing for the appointment of a Minister of Transport, the creation of a Department of Transport, the appointment of a Commissioner of Transport, and authority for making regulations for carrying out the Act. He had arranged, at the request of Auckland members, for the preparation of amendments relating to the Auckland Transport Board. It was desired to test the feeling of the House as to whether the election of the board should be put back from May, 1931, to May, 1930. and what should be the constitution of the board. He pointed out that amendments were not an essential part of •the Bill, and had only been circulated at the request of Auckland members. There was a general feeling in Auckland that the date of election should be altered. Another point dealt with the difficulty with respect to the creation of a licensing district in the Auckland Province. The Leader of the Opposition had submitted a number of pointy that he desired to be investigated. Mr. Veitch said that it -would be the function of the department to investigate such matters. GOING ON WITH BILL Mr. Coates said that it was a matter of satisfaction to him that the Minister had decided to go on with the Bill. The department’s main function was not after all purely administrative, as there were local authorities, with very wide powers, in regard to administration and the main consideration was the extra cost of the large new department before its duties had been defined. When the House did legislate it should know what it meant. The only criticism that could be made of the original Bill was that it had been before its time and in advance of public opinion. The Minister should not be disappointed that the Bill had not been proceeded with. Mr. Coates himself had had similar experiences. Transport was a far-reaching problem and the Bill as now drafted could be of great use. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) said that the Bill was a beginning. The problem was to co-ordinate the existing services and the development of other services.

Mr. Veitch, in reply, stated that the Bill gave no additional powers to the Transport Department, but merely transferred to it the statutory powers already exercised. The Bill was read a second time and was immediately considered in committee.

A clause was added constituting a new composite licensing board in place of the Devonport Borough Council, Auckland.

On a question to add a further clause changing the date of the first election of the Auckland Transport Board to not later than May 1, 1930, Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) stated that he was not opposed to the principle Involved, but he believed the board should have been given an opportunity of considering the proposed legislation. A division was taken and the clause was rejected by 27 votes to 22. The Bill as amended was reported to the House, read a third time and passed.