PARLIAMENT

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19892, 22 May 1936, Page 7

PARLIAMENT

1 RAIL AND ROAD. transport proposals. LICENSING OF OPERATORS. WELLINGTON. Thursday. Hallways and road services and the fcest means for promoting their welfare In the public Interest were treated from many angles in the House of Representatives to-day when the second reading debate on the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill was continued.

Xo Infringement of the rights of road operators Is contemplated by the Government, according to the Minister of Railways, the Hon. L). G. Sullivan. Mr Sullivan said there appeared to be some misconception in the minds of Opposition members as to the intention of clause 15, which required the consent of the Minister of Railways to the granting of licences for services which would be in conflict with serv.ces run by him. The actual purpose of the clause was that where the Government, through the Minister of Railways or the department, had purchased a service, that service would be protected to the extent of the licence involved. Mr W. ’ J. Poison (Opposition— Stratford) : That gives you a monopoly surely. “If the railways purchased a service when there were two operators on the route,” Mr Sullivan said, “the rights of the second licensee would remain intact. Can any reasonable exception be taken to that?” Over-riding Clause. Some Opposition members seemed to think the clause over-rode the powers of the Minister of Transport, Mr Sullivan oontinued. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Opposition—Kaipara) : The clause makes you dictator of the road. The Minister: You are talking sheer nonsense. I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Transport', his officers, the road operators and lawyers. Mr Coates: Leave it to the Minister of Transport. Why bring in the Minister of Railways? The Minister: The whole aim and object of the clause is to protect the service that the Government lias bought and paid for. The Government intended to lift some of the restrictions on road operators who were rendering really good service to the community, the Minister added. If it was found that the legislation was not giving effect to the Government's desire to be fair to all parties he had not the slightest doubt that amendments would be brought down to remedy the position. Board Defended. A defence of the Transport Co-ord-ination Board, coupled with criticism of the system of transport licensing proposed by the Government, were features of the speech of the Leader or the Opposition, the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes. ‘T am glad the Minister of Transport did not start ofT as did another Minister by making disparaging remarks about men who were carrying out difficult work in the public interest,” said Mr Forbes. ‘The members or the Transport Co-ordination Board did their work as satisfactorily and as efficiently as it could have 'been done by any 'body of men in this country. “1 can see in this Bill the process of strangulation as certainly as day follows night,” added Mr Forbes. ‘Provision is being made whereby the private motor services will be put out of operation and we are handing over the sole control to a Minister who must he influenced by political considerations. No matter how much the Minister may desire to be fair and impart**! he will find It difficult owing to the political pressure that will be exerted on him.” The Attorney-General, the Hon. H. G. R. Mason: Do you suggest that the Transport Co-ordination Board was not subject to political pressure? Mr Forbes: The board had nothing whatever to do with politics and was composed of independent gentlemen with a reputation for fairness. Deciding the Appeals.

Under the system of transport licensing which had existed In the past few years, said Mr Forbes, the railway service had always had to stand on its own merits when applications were being heard. Under the Bill, however, the Minister had to decide all appeals and as he would ee.rainly not have lime to go into the details of every case that duty would devolve on the departmental head. It would be a case of one public servant making the " decisions and another deciding the appeals. If the Minister thought that would satisfy the public he was wrong. The Minister of Transport, the Hon R. Semple: I am prepared to take the risk. Mr J. Ilargest ( Opposition—Awarua) said the Bill was a monopolistic measure and successful services developed through the efforts of private people were in danger or being scrapped. Mr 11. G. Dickie ( Opposition— Dutea) said he was not entirely opposed to thu Bill, but he did not think the Minister would have time to attend to all the details of appeals which would reach him when the legislation came into Government Views. Suggestions for Improvements in the railway servloe were pul forwunl bv Mr A. 1. -Moneur (Government— Itotorua). Tlie seeoml division of the railway service especially was greviousty overworked, Mr Moneur said and dad not had a "fair spin" for many years. The principal trouble was an out-of-date classification list, „hfeli was badly in need of overhauling and tended to prevent tlie promotion u t younger men who were entitled to advancement. “Wo find ttiat this maligned railway service of ours has hern Tor mativ years under the control of Governments which have had no sympathy- with it ’• said Mr 11. M. Christie iliovernmenl Watpawa . Mr 1-.. P. Meaehen (Government— Walrau - said Dial by stopping the construction of the South Island main trunk railway, Mr Forbes bad be leaved Hie people of his own and adjoining electorates. The future of the transport system in New Zealand was . wrapped up in the completion of that line.

“ruder this Hill Hie Minister of Transport himself is set up as the tribunal. but if you search our judicial records throughout the British Empire you will find that Hie political tribunal is condemned." said Mr W. I>. Endean (l ipposltion—Parnell). "So long as you have an unfettered board, free from any local or polllieal influence, then you will have justice done." The adjournment was taken at 11.40 put.