M. H. WYNYABD.]

L—ls.

81

And you will agree that the worse the roads the greater the amount of petrol consumed ?—Yes, and the fewer the motor-cars. But are those contributors not entitled to anything for what they contribute ? —I do not think so. They are obtaining an indirect benefit from the subsidies on the secondary highways. Do you think it is necessary for a Department to control all the different activities in connection with motor transportation ? —I do not think it is absolutely essentia] that the one Department should control both the general transport conditions and the construction of roads, any more than it should control, say, the construction of railways. Still, you are aware of the tendency rather to unify control than to spread it ? —Yes, and I see no objection, provided proper provision is made so that the present efficiency of the Board is continued. Mr. Broadfoot.] Would it not be better for the Highways Board to have their own engineers ?— My personal views are that, instead of centralizing the work, as suggested by the Chairman, it would be splitting it up by creating another construction body alongside the one we already have.

Thursday, 17th October, 1929. Charles Fisher Gardner examined. (No. 25.) Witness : I am Mayor of New Lynn, and in speaking to-day I am representing the Borough of New Lynn, Glen Eden Town Board, Henderson Town Board, and three ridings in the Waitemata County —Waipareira, Waikumete, and Titirangi. We have considered this Bill, and we think some clauses are quite good. Clause 12 provides that there are no exemptions—every vehicle must pay its share. Clause 16 refers to the collection of drivers' license fees. At present those are collected by the local bodies with their existing staff, and that, of course, means no added expenditure to the local body. Under the Act they will lose at least some of that revenue. It has been suggested that there has been a loose system of granting licenses in New Zealand owing to local bodies having control of the issue of drivers' licenses. We do not agree that that is so. We think the standard of driving in New Zealand is extremely high. I know of my own experience that it is much easier to get a driver's license in London than it is in Auckland or any part of New Zealand. I produce a license granted in London. [License produced.] In London all you do is to say that you have driven a car before, pay the license fee of 55., fill in a form, and get the license. There is no test—just simply tell they you have driven a car. Clause 19 provides that a warning of seven days shall be given where prosecutions are to follow. That is a fair and reasonable clause. With regard to subclause (2) of clause 25, regarding lights on other vehicles, this is an important matter, but I think all the necessary powers exist to-day. All I can say is that on the majority of our roads horse-driven vehicles and bicycles do not bother to have lights attached ; but I think the existing powers should be enforced, and if the Bill provides for the enforcement of lighting on all vehicles it will do good. With regard to clause 30, I suppose it is made clear elsewhere, but it does not seem very clear as it is, that where an extension of population occurs or on the expiration of existing licenses they will be automatically extended. It seems to us that this is necessary. Our population is not fixed- —it is not static—it is growing all the time, and we believe there should be ample provision for extension. The Chairman : Probably the licensing authorities would control that. Witness : We think it should be amply provided for, so that there will be no hold-up by the Department. Clause 29 provides for all districts being incorporated into motor-omnibus districts. Ido not know what will happen if a district is put into the wrong omnibus district. Is there provision for an appeal ? If not, I suggest there should be. Where the main highways district did not coincide with transport requirements there might be difficulty. The district might do quite satisfactorily from the highways point of view, but not from that of the Transport Department. Mr. Mason : Not " might be difficulty " —cases have already arisen ? Witness: Yes. Hon. Mr. Veitch : An amendment is being prepared in that direction. Witness : We think the appeal should be not to any Board, but with a view to getting general satisfaction. The local authorities who have to administer these matters want to keep out of trouble just as much as any one else, and if they are able to appeal to some authority which is regarded as being absolutely impartial they have a better chance of keeping their people quiet than if they have to go to some one who may be accused of being partial. That is a difficulty which appears in transport matters already. So the matter has a " nasty taste "to start with, and we would be much happier if appeals were to be made to a Judge of the Supreme Court. Hon. Mr. Veitch : It is intended to have a Judge on the Board, in any event. Witness: But he is not the majority. We think it should be composed of a Judge alone. Mr. Williams.] Would a Magistrate do ?■ —I think it would depend on the importance of the case in point. I would not think of sending a minor case to a Judge. It might be possible to spread the cases so that in the majority of cases, not involving big issues, it would not be necessary to send them to the Judge. I understood you to say that one person should decide. It might not always be convenient to get a Judge ? —I think where a big issue was involved —say, a large sum of money at stake —it should go to a Judge. Hon. Mr. Veitch.] Who is to decide which cases should go to the Judge and which to the Magistrate ? —I think that could be overcome without any difficulty by fixing cost of appeal to a Judge.

11—I. 15.