TRANSPORT BILL

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19890, 20 May 1936, Page 7

TRANSPORT BILL

CONTROL RY MINISTER. DEBATE OPENS IN HOUSE. ELIMINATION OF COMPETITION. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. The Government’s plans in the direction of reorganising the transport system were outlined by the Hon. R. Semple, Minister of Public Works, in opening the second reading debate on the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives last evening. During the debate the Right Hon. J. G. Coates (Opposition— Kaipara), strongly criticised the proposals and claimed that transport was being socialised in order to bolster up the State-owned railways. The Minister said when the Government took office the position in regard to transport was one of competitive chaos. The railways were operated by an independent statutory board, shipping was operated by private enterprise and road transport was controlled under the Transport Licensing Act. Control had been handed w over to the Transport Co-ordination * Roard and the Minister of Transport had no say whatever in the administration of the service or of the board. “ What public authority has a better right to control the transport of the country than the Government?” asked the Minister. ”In my opinion the Government of the day is the authority which should exercise that control because it is elected by the people and is answerable to the people and is the defender of the public rights. " We must get to grips with this problem as soon as possible in the interests of the safety of our people and we are not going to hand it over to an outside body. Without an up-to-date transport system any country today is behind scratch in the world competition. At Home the Minister of Transport is the final court of appeal, so far as road transport is concerned, and the people who control other forms of transport have asked the British Government to abolish the present method of dealing with appeals and to give them also the right of appeal to the Minister.” 11 Wasteful Duplication.*’ “With the idea of eliminating wasteful duplication of road and rail services it Is proposed to provide that no goods-service area licences shall transport goods over more than a reasonable distance where there is a railway service available,” Mr Semple said. ”It is considered that competition between road and rail over long distances is not desirable in the public interest. It is therefore proposed to review all existing route licences which compete w|th the railway service for distances which are considered unreasonable.” The Bill gave power to control goods services by regulations under Order-In-Council, the Minister said, and although up to the present it had not born possible to complete plans as they affected goods services the broad lines nlong which the. question would he approached had been established. It was intended to take into consideration the labour conditions in the industry for a start. Definite hours of work and minimum rates of pay would be fixed for all those engaged in the industry. “ Sweated Labour.** There was deffnite evidence available that in some sections of motor transport men were being “sweated” and being forced to work extraordinarily long hours, continued the Minister. Some of those men worked between 16 and 17 hours a day, often driving motor-lorries which were actually working in competition with railways, yet the authorities were able to secure rio record of what those men were being paid. All that would end. " These conditions which will be set down will be applied to all operators, Including the owner-drivers,” the Minister added. “We must put an end to the owner-driver as ho operates at present in many cases and to the cutthroat competition which that sort of of thing allows. The alleged owneydriver Is going to be brought within the law. The condilions which we propose and the machinery which is necessary for their enforcement will be discussed fully with those interested, of course. We Intend that every step we take shall be dis* cussed with those engaged in the industry.” IVteohanlcal Fitness. Mr Semple stated that close attention would be paid to securing proper mechanical fitness of all vehicles encaged in transport. Standard conditions of fitness for goods-service vehicles would be set up and all w. vehicles used under a goods-service ~ licence would be required to conform with those conditions. In framing those regulations the views of those interested would also be taken into consideration. Some additional fee would be required to cover the cost of the necessary inspections, but i: was anticipated that the simplification of the existing licensing machinery would enable some reduction in th*J present licence fee. Cream Carters. " It Is proposed to abolish the fivfmile main highway exemption and to require cream carriers to be licensed.” Mr Semple continued, "but we will exempt services engaged in the carriage of newspapers only; also services carried on within any borough and for a distance of five miles therefrom will not come under the Act. This means that all goods-servlces for hire or reward, with the exception of town carriers, will require to he licensed. It Is also proposed to remove all weight and commodity restrictions from goods-service area licences. The licensing authorities will, however, have the power to make exceptions in the case of certain commodities, such as furniture, road metal, etc. ** it is also considered that the present area, as specified on the licences are too restrictive, and it is proposed to grant much wider areas, so that the modern motor truck may operated t" Its maximum efficiency. It shall also l»e a condition of goodsservice area licences that the operator „hall carry as far ns possible all goods offered without discrimination.” (Continued In next column.)

“ DICTATORIAL POWERS.”

OPPOSITION ATTACK. OBJECTION TO RESTRICTIONS. WELLINGTON, Tuesday. In a general criticism of the Bill, Mr Coates asked the Minister whether he realised that by protecting the railways he might he protecting something already growing obsolete in certain directions. Road transport could only expand by having a right to expand. A study of the BUI forced the conclusion that the proposed alterations In the constitution of licensing authorities were only a piece of legislative blufT. The Minister was given power to over-ride the decisions of the authorities and would become a dictator of transport, with power to suspend or revoke existing licences by star chamber methods. All appeals had to be made to the Minister. It was laid down further that the Minister need not hear any person, take any evidence, or receive any representations- lie was encased In bullet-proof armour and placed In a strongroom. His decisions could not be challenged. ” With the Minister in the position of having to decide all appeal!, political considerations must count,” Mr Coates continued. “ The logical conclusion from the Bill is that people are to be told how they are to travel and when they are to travel. Two men in the Cabinet, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Railways, will be able to impose their will on the whole country, the travelling public and the people who require transport for their goods. Under the clause which protects the Railway Department there is even the impossible situation of one form of transport sitting In judgment of all others. Rail and Road. “ The Government Is denying freedom and attempting to abolish any suggestion of competition, which is the key to improved conditions and services. It appears to take the view that transport problems resolve themselves into a question of rail versus road. This view is almost criminal in its narrowness. There should be no question of warring interests. It should not be rail versus road, but rail and road.” The Government’s policy of adding new lines, which were likely to prove unprofitable was not likely to improve the revenue position, and yet the aim of the Government as suggested in the Bill was to protect the railways bytaking power to restrict or even to prohibit' road services. It could be shown that road services did not affect to any marked extent the earnings of the railways. “ In ten years there lias been a decline in gross passenger revenue of £920,000, and when it is remembered that road services competing with the rail earn in revenue only £250,000 annually, it is obvious that business has been lost principally to the private car. 1 take it tliat even in its wildest dreams of socialism the Government does not propose to prohibit people from travelling in their own private cars and to | force them to travel by rail.” Protecting Goods Traffic. Tlie railways bad had to resort in despair to numerous local, and often discriminatory, rates to protect their goods trutfie, Mr Coates went on. In respect of the highest rated goods, the railway rate last year between Auckland and Te Kuiti, where road competion was negligible, was £3 i is 3d a ton for 126 miles; from Auckland to Waihi, where road competition existed, it was £i 15s a ton for 142 miles. In the latter case the railways hauled goods for an increased distance at less than half the cost in order to meet competition. Numerous similar instances could be quoted. Road services had been able to carry on even under those conditions, but the effect on coastal shipping and certain harbours hail proved almost disastrous. Surely Unit was an argument lor coordination of all services, rather than exclusive use of the railways. Mr Coates added that it was useless expecting the railways to earn a profit on £5 i,000,000- It would he far more honest to separate the capitalisation ; in, ° developmental and commercial accounts.