1.—15.

42

[j. A. C. ALLUM.

You suggest that transport is a public monopoly ? —I repeat that the Auckland Transport Board, which has a monopoly granted it by Parliament, is only allowed to part with this monopoly in certain directions, for a limited time only—that is, a maximum of five years ; so that the position actually exists. You know the clause in the Bill dealing with the question of compensation ? —Yes. If that clause had been in operation when you took over the buses in Auckland and placed them under the City Council, what effect would it have had on the purchase-price of the private buses ? — In 1926 ? Yes ? —I do not think it would have made very much difference, because, in my opinion, while the Act expressly stated that goodwill should not be allowed, it unquestionably was allowed. I have never yet been able to distinguish that a fleet value is anything but goodwill; so that in every case the bus companies undoubtedly obtained from the Court a sum far in excess of the value of the assets. Do you remember the case of Gallagher and somebody else?—l am afraid lam not informed about that case, as it occurred while I was in England, but I shall be glad to have the information supplied if wanted. Mr. Murdoch.'] You raised by loan the sum of £526,600 ?—Yes. What is the value of the debentures you issued ? —We sold in the first issue £120,000. What security did you give for the debentures ?—The usual security under the Act. What does it cover ?—lt covers the metropolitan area. What is the whole of your assets in the area ? —The whole of the property of the area. What revenue do you receive annually from your transport undertaking ? —About £700,000. From what sources ? —Tram and bus fares. There are some incidental sources as well, but they are negligible. How will the operation of this Transport Act affect your finance ?—lf a separate licensing authority is set up, and there is a disposition to favour private enterprise, and it is allowed to operate—a thing we got rid of in 1926—it is going to most seriously affect us, because the position is difficult enough at the present time, and competition, by taking away revenue, would operate disastrously with us. This is my opinion, with a knowledge of the world's experience in this matter. You assume that if this Transport Act were in operation there would be other licenses issugd, and that they would come into competition with you ? —lf that is not so, then I cannot see the purpose of the Act. You have not any reason to believe that would happen, except you think so ?—I am afraid I have good reason to think so. Can you give me something more concrete as to the indications you have in mind ? —lt seems to me that the position at the present time is indicated by what is happening in Parliament. It is not a. case of any wrongful administration of an Act, but there are apparently parties wanting a change. It can only be that there is an endeavour to assist—l will not say " favour " —those who are at present suffering from what they believe to be disabilities. The Chairman. ] Do you think the motorists have been concerned ? —That may be the impression placed on it ; but there is a better and simpler method of dealing with it. Mr. Murdoch.'] With regard to the suburban areas, you claim, as a Transport Board, that you are giving them adequate service ?—We give them an adequate service—a perfectly reasonable service— and the suggestion to the contrary would not have come about in a community where the public gave heed to the great value of the service rendered them, as in our case. I have travelled in a good many parts of the world, and I say quite definitely I do not know of a city of the size and density of population of Auckland that is receiving the service we are operating there to-day. Are your fares reasonably low ? —Yes, in my opinion. For the different sections ? —Yes, for the different sections they are low. lam not speaking at random, but from what I have seen ; and figures can be taken out as to comparison of our fares with other centres : take, for example, the service to the Hutt Yallev. You suggest the following new clause : " The definition of ' motor-omnibus ' in section two of the principal Act is hereby amended by deleting therefrom the words ' exceeding seven in number, including the driver.' " Does that mean that you want to take in all motor-cars, or what we call taxis ?—No ; the idea is this : there have been cases in the Auckland district —principally North Shore —where taxis were put on to take passengers ; we had community cars and we settled them ; but the taxis were running and charging separate fares, and they were allowed to continue for some time. I did not take that meaning from this new clause, which says you want to delete the words " exceeding seven in number." Can you explain it further ? —We want to make the definition of a " motor-omnibus " to apply to any vehicle plying at separate fares, no matter how many passengers, or how few, are carried. That means that all the taxis would come under this clause ?—lf they ply for separate hire, yes. The taxis do not come under the licensing authorities' control, because a person hires a taxi to go only from one point to another, and pays the fare for that taxi. I only want to deal with the position where passengers are carried on a definite route at separate fares. We think you will find that the Act is not clear on that point. The Chairman.] Would that apply to taxis, or taxi fares, from the city to the race meetings ? —Yes. Mr. Murdoch.] They would have to take out a special license, would they not ? —I do not know that a taxi is legally a motor-omnibus. A taxi is not allowed to take passengers from the city to the racecourse at a special fare. One person may hire the taxi and pay the fare, but it is not legal for three or four persons to hire the taxi and pay separate fares. If that is done, then the taxi-drivers fall foul of the city by-laws. Mr. Ansell.] Is it the fact that there have been some hostilities between'this company in Auckland and your Board ? —No, none at all.