TRANSPORT BILL

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19896, 27 May 1936, Page 9

TRANSPORT BILL

A GOVERNMENT CRITIC. .__—— FINAL COURT OF APPEAL. THIRD READING CARRIED. _— VV'ELLINGTON, Tucsday. A frank criticism of the provisions in tile Transport, Licensing Amendment Bill which constitute the Minister of Transport as the tinai court or appeal in all transport licensing cases caused a surprise in thc third reading debate on the measure in the House oi lie—prescntathes tu—day. " Generally. 1 support the Bill. but 1 Would have prelerred to see it providing for some right of appeal other than to the Minister himseli’.“ said Mr Burnett. "i think the Minister would have been well advised if he had had an Appeal Court or appeal tribunal ot‘ some sort to which he could have referred the cases which will arise over decisions or the authorities. mom of Rfluul. “ There should be some Court to which appellants are entitled to go and give evidence on their cases. but under this Bill the Minister does not need to hear any evidence at all it' he ' wishes. Under all our appeal legisla—tion in British law there is the right to a rehearing, but the Minister. un—der this Bill. can also refuse that right. l am sure the Minister in control or transport. at present will give every necessary consideration to appeals, but l think there should be some protection in the Bill ‘ror cases which might arise in the future. We must see that people with large sums invested in these services have some protection for their interests." Mr W. J. Broadtoot (Opposition—Waitomo) said probably a good many members 0. the Government held the same View but were not game to get on their rest and say so. The Rt. Hon. J. u. Castes (Opposi-‘ tion—Kaipara) said the speech by the ‘ member for ’l‘auranga had rocked the 1 Government boat and rocked it badly.i Mr A. s. Richards (Government—i Rosklll): Not a ripple. i The removal by legislation 0! the‘ right of any individual to have his‘ case heard by the Courts was strongly criticised by Mr Coates. ile said it was the llrst time in this country that the people had been denied the right to approach the Courts. The oppoei—tion was opposed to any such interterence with the individual. The Leader oi the Upposltion. the Rt. Hon, G. W. Forbes, said there were many elements in the Bill likely to cause much dissatisfaction in the future. The Opposition believed there was room [or private enterprise and any criticism it had directed at the Government was aimed at safeguard—ing the rights 01 those who in goodi with had invested their money 111‘ transport services. 1 Atmnsy-esncral's View. ‘ The Attorney-General. the Hon. H.‘ U. R. Mason, said the law recognised‘ that appeals in general favoured the man with the longest purse and that‘ better Justice was not necessarily‘ secured by multiplying the rights or appeal. The intention of the Bill was to ensure that the decisions or the} ' .\linieter were not set aside on formal ground and to secure administration oi Justice against frivolous attacks. "I have not received one single‘ tNemam, letter or resolution or an an—tagonistic nature to this Bill." said the Minister of Transport. the Hon, it. semple. when replying to the debate. it the members or the Opposition had received definite objections to the measure. added Mr Semple, it was their duty to reveal them. Certainly he had received none. and no objections mm been sent to him through members “the“ on tho Opposition or Govern-. meat aside 01! thelHouse. ‘ . l‘ amp 0 rep led to varlou n s raised by Opposition members gaggle:- i "rm“ that While he was Minister no: lingatlceßllxlvould be done anybody. e was re . ‘ passed. ad a thhd time and fi-‘“ ‘ i