TRANSPORT BILL

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

TRANSPORT BILL

URGENCY GIVEN MEASURE. MINISTER ANSWERS CRITICS. TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Friday. The House of Representatives met at 10.30 a.m. and urgency was accorded the passing of the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill. The Minister of Transport, the Hon. R. Semple, replying in the second reading debate, said in his opinion the arguments used toy the Opposition were superficial and did not touch the kernel of the matter. The Bill gave better control of transport by rail, sea, and air. The principal objection was against the Minister being the final court of appeal tout that provision was taken from the English Act, and he quoted opinions of operators there to show that it toad worked satisfactorily. The Hon. A. Hamilton (Opposition— Wallace) : The principle is not right all the same.

Mr Semple said it was justice and gave that amount of flexibility which enabled them lo live and expand. He claimed the Transport Co-ordination Board toad not functioned in the real sense of the word. Even the most conservative newspapers in New Zealand agreed ttie Government should have control of transport. He said in 1927 Mr Coates had advocated the investment of the control of transport in the Minister of Transport hut in 1930 he opposed the Bill that did that lock, stock and barrel.” What a political somersault 1 Legacy From Past. Mr Semple said if Mr Coates thought hat was going down with the thinking public he was mistaken. The Government had to consider how it could best save millions invested in unfinished railways. It was not the present Government’s doing but had been handed down to them by the past Government. If he had been responsible for anything like that he would hang his head in shame. He said Mr Coates in his day made some bargains with private enterprise. The then Government had allowed companies to visualise the needs or the future and had then had t.o buy them out at Iheir own price and Mr Coates now warned the present Government to be careful and businesslike.

He referred to a number of railway lines that ware started and after considerable sums were spent construction was stopped. If the Minister of that day had been careful the country would not be in the mess it

Mr Coates: Pure imagination. Mr Semple: Not a semblance of Imagination.

The Minister said he had been quoting figures supplied by his department. Money had been spent without any real consideration and knowledge. The Opposition said the Governmet’s policy would bring the country to ruin Mr Forbes: So It will. Mr Semple said if the Government had no better record than the record of the past Minister at the end of ils three years' service it would get what it deserved. Beoor>d Readings Carried. A division was called for and the second reading was carried bv 50 votes to 16 and the House went into committee to consider the clauses of the Bill. The Division list was as follows: For Bill (60). Anderton, Armstrong, Barnes. Barren. i:. H. Burnett. Campbell, Carr. Christie. Coleman. Coulter, Cullen! Denham, Fraser, Herring, Hodgens Howard, I-lultquist, Hunter, Jones, Jordan, Langstone, Lowrv, Lyon McCombs, McDougall, McMillan, Martin, Mason, Meaehen, Monour, Munro Nash, Neilson, Nordmeyer, O’Brien, Parry, Petrie, Richards, Roberts, Robertson, Savage, Schramm, Semple, Sexton, Sullivan, Thorn, Tirikatene, Webb, Williams, Wilson. Against the Bill (16). Broadfoot, T. D. Burnell. Coates, Cobbe. Endean, Forbes, Hamilton, Harsost.. Henare. Holland, Ngata, Poison, Hoy, Smiih, Wilkinson, Wright. Speaking on the short title. Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Opposition—Waitomo) said he thought the control of transport was too much for one man and that the four men appointed to be licensing authorities would be departmental officials who would consult the Minister before he acted. He considered the tribunal of three was a better system as local knowledge would ho necessity if proper decisions were to he reached. lie thought the whole problem would fall between two stools, the Railway Department on the one side and the Transport Department on the other.

Ml' J. Ilargest (Opposition— Awarua) criticised the provision making the Minister the sole source of appeal and said the Minister would be a great "poobah” of transport. He predicted the Minister would he hoist with bis own petard and would lie so deluged with disappointed operators that in 18 months his life would be a misery to hint. Mr W. J. Poison (Opposition— Stratford) said the Prime Minister had slated tie had been unfairly treated bv the press of New Zealand, yet the Minister of Transport quoted news-papei-s as supporting him. He referred

lo what had happened in Queensland, said lhere Hie Transport Board dro\, transport off the road and gave Hie railways a free hand. He said he feared that what had happened in Queensland would happen in New Zealand. Interference with Progress. The Bight Hon. J. o. Coates defended tile actions of the past Gov- . ''ament, and said nothing was done until it was investigated by the Rail-

way Department or by a commission. There was nothing in the Bill that would conserve public, safety. That was in another Bill, and there were three ways of doing it—(l) by education: (2) by proper supervision and licensing of drivers; and (3) bv regular inspection of the machines, ‘lie said Hie relentless march of progress in transport could not lie interfered with, and it was being interfered with in that Bill. lie considered the Minister of Transport should liave no other job than that, because it would give him enough to do. Mr Contes claimed that the Railway Department could not provide the seri Vi |lw giVen h - private ente, ‘Prise. The The Hon. D. Sullivan' of Railways) said Mr Coales seemed to be getting the whole matter into a wrong focus. The suggestion that there was going to he war between the railways and road operators was entirely astray, but there was some very real need for co-ordination. He quoted figures in support of Mr Semple’s statement that the Government purchased the road services at the vendors’ price.

Mr 5?. G. Smith (Opposition—New Plymouth) said in his district ilie railways were trying to run the services off the road by unfair competition. t T ,le luncheon adjournment was then