The term “tramway” could be applied in New Zealand from 1860 onwards to lines constructed to carry timber from bush to sawmill. But this article will consider tramways only as they were used in passenger transport in the larger towns and cities. The Dun Mountain Railway, which carried passengers in the Nelson area from 1862, was a horse-tramway service. The line of 3 ½ miles from Grahamstown (now Thames), opened in 1872, was run by steam locomotives. Steam-tramway services began in Wellington in 1878, in Dunedin in 1879, and in Christchurch in 1880. Steam trams met with considerable opposition, both from their competitors, the cab owners, and from citizens who objected to the soot and cinders or whose horses were frightened. Horse-drawn trams were found to pay better in Wellington and Dunedin, but in Christchurch the steam trams continued to run until they were replaced by electric trams. Auckland, possibly profiting by the experience of Wellington and Dunedin, used only horse trams from 1884 until electric-tram services began, although the Takapuna Steam Tramway Co. ran services from 1910 to 1927. The electric tram was a considerable improvement. Auckland began the first service in 1902, followed by Dunedin (1903), Wellington (1904), Christchurch (1905), Wanganui (1908), Invercargill (1912), Napier and Gisborne (1913), and New Plymouth (1916). The Gisborne tramway services were notable because their power came from storage batteries and not from overhead wires. Tramway services were at their peak during the first two decades of the present century. From 1921 onwards the effects of competition from motor buses began to be felt, and the trend was for less passengers per car-mile.

Tramways have been an important part of town life – 220 million passengers were carried in each of the peak years, 1944 and 1945. The Auckland system was by far the largest, carrying 100 million passengers in 1944. In the same year the Wellington system carried 60 million passengers; Christchurch, 30 million; Dunedin, 21 million; and New Plymouth, Wanganui, and Invercargill, 3 million each. The Gisbore battery system lasted only until 1929, and earthquake damage made an end to the Napier system in 1931. In 1929 there were 170 miles of tramway line in use; by 1950 there were 158. Wellington was the last place to use trams, the service ending on 2 May 1964.

Cable tramways have run only in Wellington and Dunedin. The last Dunedin service ended in 1957, but the Wellington cable tramway to Kelburn is still in use.

by Norman Frederick Watkins, M.COM., Research Officer, Transport Department, Wellington.

Municipal passenger services have suffered striking losses of traffic since the Second World War. In 1950–51, 198 million passengers were carried; by 1955–56 the total fell to 163 million, by 1960–61 to 137 million and by 1963–64 to 127 million. The decline has many factors, the most important being the greater use of private motorcars. In March 1951 there were 251,000 private and business cars on the road; 13 years later, in 1964, there were 674,000. These run a considerable milage in towns and not only reduce the demand for public transport but also, by contributing to traffic congestion, increase its cost of operation. The falling off in passenger traffic and increases in the costs of operation have caused municipal transport to lose money in recent years. In 1963–64, of the 10 undertakings, two only made profits on the year's working and in each case the profit was very small. Eight made losses ranging from £1,435 to 249,558, which had to be borne by the ratepayers. This state of affairs is by no means confined to New Zealand. Future prospects are not bright. The managements of local body transport are bedevilled by many problems, not the least being their inability, because of local political pressures, to supply only those services which are justified by purely business facts and judgments.

by Norman Frederick Watkins, M.COM., Research Officer, Transport Department, Wellington.

Steam-tram services began in three cities in 1878 or later, but they were quickly replaced in two of them by horse-drawn trams. For the next 20 years horse trams, omnibuses, and cabs met the needs of municipal transport, until the invention and use of the electric tram. But the large capital needed for the electrification and construction of the permanent way made public ownership of tram services almost inevitable. Privately owned electric-tram services ran only in Auckland and Dunedin. When, however, the tramway services ceased operation at Napier in 1931 and at Wanganui in 1950, they were replaced by privately owned omnibus services.

Horse and steam trams lasted from 1878 to 1905, to be followed by electric trams, the last of which ran in Wellington till May 1964. Motor omnibuses appeared in the 1920s, while the precursor of the modern trolley bus, said to have been the first in the Southern Hemisphere, began a service from Thorndon to Kaiwharawhara in 1924. Since 1950 the role of the electric trams has rapidly declined and, today, motor omnibuses and trolley buses are overwhelmingly the most important means of municipal transport.

The table at the foot of the page summarises the statistics of operation of municipal transport services for the five years ended 31 March 1964.

The first attempt seems to have been made in 1926, when regulations under the Board of Trade Act, later incorporated in the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act of 1926, gave local bodies power to control and, in effect, to limit the competition of omnibuses against tramway services. There was an advisory council for a short time in 1929, which ceased to function when Parliament did not pass the empowering measure. The crisis in the public finances, to which the railways largely contributed by their inability to pay the full assessed interest on their working capital, resulted in the passing of the Transport Licensing Act in 1931. This measure aimed to limit entry to the road-transport industry in order to give some protection to the State railways. In 1933 a Transport Coordination Board of three members was formed to coordinate, as far as possible, road, sea, and rail transport. The Board tried to take a broad view of the transport industry, but its powers were inadequate and it had many critics to whom “coordination” apparently meant the elimination of competitors. The new Labour Government, which got rid of the Board in 1936, apparently accepted the idea of integration as a long-term goal. By 1939 many long-distance goods and passenger services competing with the railways had been taken over by the Railways Department. After the war coordination again became an issue of importance and a Transport Development Committee, under the aegis of the Organisation for National Development, held meetings until 1948, in which year legislation empowered the formation of a Transport Coordination Council. The new body held its only meeting late in 1949, for in the following year it was put out of existence by the National Government. It was announced that it would be replaced by committees of men who understood the local conditions; they would therefore advise on any specific transport problems. Many committees were appointed to consider problems, some of which had no relation whatever to the broad problem of the coordination and inter-relation of the various forms of transport. In 1953 the Minister implied in the annual report of the Transport Department that there was no need for any coordinating body, hinting that this was the function of the 11 road transport licensing authorities. In 1955, in 1959, and in 1962 two committees of members of Parliament in the Government party considered general transport problems which apparently could not be handled by the existing administrative machinery. In 1958 the Minister of Railways set up an interdepartmental committee to consider the whole subject of coordination. The report of this committee has not yet been released.

The bewildering variety of attempts to devise machinery to solve what might be termed the normal problems of transport (including coordination) are the inevitable result of inadequate departmental administrative structure. Many of the matters considered by the numerous committees would have been dealt with more effectively by a Department of State responsible for all forms of transport. This is the practice in many other and larger countries. The problems, however, will remain in New Zealand as long as transport administration is fragmented.

by Norman Frederick Watkins, M.COM., Research Officer, Transport Department, Wellington.

There are four State Departments concerned with the administration of transport – Railways, Civil Aviation, Marine, and Transport. The National Roads Board, comprising representatives of road users, local bodies, and Government officials, makes independent decisions of great importance to road transport. Although one minister holds the portfolios of Railways, Transport, and Civil Aviation, each of these Departments reports directly to him. There are no other technical or specialist advisers interposed between the Minister and his Departments to help to resolve the inevitable conflicts of interest. The Transport Department, when it came into being in 1929, was given some general responsibility for coordination, but it was also charged with the detailed administration of the economic and safety laws relating to road transport. These have become so complex and numerous that today its limited resources are spent almost entirely on regulating road transport. In contrast with the practices of other countries, it is deeply involved in traffic-law enforcement – work which in 1929 was considered to belong essentially to the police and not to the then newly formed Transport Department. On 31 March 1965, 356 of its staff of 768 were uniformed traffic officers.

The lack of cohesion in the administrative structure and the small resources of the Transport Department have, so far, prevented the carrying out of any logical national transport policy. The report of the Royal Commission on the State Services drew attention to the need for a departmental reorganisation to improve coordination, the formulation of transport policy, and the control of public expenditure on transport. At the time of writing the Government has not pronounced on these recommendations; sectional interests would seem to prefer the status quo.

The coordination of transport was a live topic 30 or so years ago when concern was shown at railway losses and their bad effects on the economy of the country. More recently, when much greater losses have been accepted with apparent equanimity, there seemed less interest in the problem. The subject was revived, if only temporarily, by evidence tended to the Royal Commission of Inquiry (1961) on the State Services in New Zealand. This evidence showed differing views on the implications of transport coordination, and at least one witness suggested seriously that coordination was part of the apparatus of the totalitarian State.

In the broadest sense, coordination implies that each of the various forms of transportation has some sphere of usefulness in which it is most efficient. Thus new forms of transport have attracted business from the older and less efficient forms. Horse-drawn transport was partly replaced by the railway and, later, by the motor vehicle; the railway, too, has been partly replaced by the motor vehicle. Air transport presents an ever-growing challenge. The growth of the newer forms means that the old ones have been left with surplus capacity. Successive Governments have considered it wise to ensure that the older forms, in which public money is invested, are given legislative protection. The problem is to decide what are to be the spheres of operation of each form, and so to develop an efficient national transport system with a minimum reliance upon the country's resources.

The value of New Zealand's overseas trade per person is one of the highest in the world, greater than that of Australia, the United Kingdom, or Canada.

Representative figures for 1964 were:

Overseas Trade per Person

In view of the importance of this trade, it has been the policy of the New Zealand Government to appoint Trade Commissioners to selected overseas posts for the purpose of providing exporters with information and advice on such matters as market prospects, shipping services, selling methods, customs difficulties, and competition from other countries. Moreover, they must be stationed wherever there is a reasonable prospect of new markets developing. Thus New Zealand offices overseas usually combine trade, consular, and diplomatic services. In some cities, as in Montreal, Vancouver, Port of Spain, and Accra, the Trade Commissioner is the sole New Zealand representative, his duties ranging over all matters in his area affecting New Zealand and of interest to New Zealand. In others, as in Paris, Washington, London, Tokyo, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, and New Delhi, in addition to carrying out his specific trade functions, he serves as Economic or Commercial Counsellor or Commercial Secretary to our Ambassadors or High Commissioners. In other cities again, as in Sydney, Melbourne, Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco, where there are no New Zealand embassies or High Commissioners' offices, there may be tourist or consular representatives as well as Trade Commissioners. These trade representatives become familiar figures in many Departments of State in overseas capitals and in the offices of many international organisations, as well as in commercial trading circles.

Within this varied framework lies the Trade Commissioner's constant function as an officer of the Department of Industries and Commerce, regularly servicing the various divisions of the Department.

Trade Commissioners are concerned with the whole of New Zealand's economic development. As an example, they have always played a useful part in stimulating overseas investment in New Zealand, for, besides assisting the development of the national economy, capital inflow makes an important contribution towards balancing exchange transactions. Thus the Trade Commissioner's role in export development is to help to expand the volume of exports and to develop new markets. This role can be considered from two angles – trade-promotion work (the direct promotion of export sales), and trade-relations work (negotiations over tariffs and trade agreements). Each complements the other and in both fields the Trade Commissioner is able to give assistance to New Zealand exporting interests.

There are 19 New Zealand trade offices located as follows:

In addition to the New Zealand officers seconded abroad, there are a number of staff recruited at the posts. Included among these are marketing officers at New Delhi, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Tokyo, Port of Spain, and Hong Kong, where their local knowledge is of great help to the Trade Commissioners in handling trade inquiries and trade-promotion work.

Although this trade representation is strategically placed, there are many countries and territories in which New Zealand is not represented. These areas (for example, parts of Europe, the Mediterranean, Central and South America) are visited from time to time by Trade Commissioners, sometimes as members of trade-survey teams. It is important, however, to note that the territories covered by the Trade Commissioners are wider than those indicated by the formal location of the posts. The Senior Trade Commissioner in London, for instance, obtains trade information about European countries through the trade representation service such countries maintain in London, through other contacts he has developed, and through visits to centres such as Bonn, and Rome. Similarly, the Trade Commissioner in Accra covers Nigeria, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and the Congo.

by John Bernard Prendergast, M.COM., Director, Overseas Trade Division, Department of Industries and Commerce, Wellington.

The keynote of the New Zealand economy is expansion – of farm and factory production, of domestic and export markets, and of the distributive and service facilities that accompany a developing economy. Consistent with this growth is the need for freedom of competition to encourage efficiency in production and distribution, and to ensure that producers and distributors do not charge unfair prices.

The first significant legislation in this field, the Monopolies Prevention Act of 1908, applied to agricultural implements, flour, wheat, and potatoes. This was followed by the Commercial Trusts Act of 1910 which embraced a wider range of commodities, including all foodstuffs, and made it an offence to refuse illegally to deal in these goods or to create monopolies contrary to the public interest. It also made illegal certain exclusive dealing arrangements and provided for the control of commercial trusts.

The Trade Practices Act was passed in 1958 with the object of preventing trade practices deemed contrary to the public interest. This Act established the Trade Practices and Prices Commission, comprising a chairman and at least one other member. Provision has also been made for the appointment of an Examiner of Trade Practices and Prices – an officer of the Department of Industries and Commerce – whose duty it would be to investigate, either on complaints made to him or on his own initiative, trade practices which appeared to be contrary to the public interest.

If, after making an investigation, the examiner forms the opinion that a trade practice contrary to the public interest is being carried on, he is required to report to the Commission which then holds an inquiry, usually in public, to consider the matter. The Commission comes to a decision on the basis of the submissions and evidence presented to it at the inquiry, and if it finds that a trade practice contrary to the public interest is in operation, it may make an order requiring the practice to be discontinued or suitably modified. The parties affected by such an order have a right of appeal to the Trade Practices Appeal Authority. After holding an inquiry, the Commission may also, in cases where it considers such a course would be appropriate, recommend to the Minister of Industries and Commerce the re-imposition of price control concerning any goods and services covered by the trade practice in question.

Section 19 of the Act specifies 16 broad classes of trade practices which may be the subject of orders by the Commission. Amongst the principal types of trade practices involved are collective pricing agreements, ring tendering arrangements, individual resale price maintenance schemes, and agreements between traders to restrict the number of resale outlets for their products. Another type of trade practice, for which the Act makes provision, is the unjustifiable refusal by a wholesaler to sell or supply goods to a retailer.

Section 20 states that a trade practice shall be deemed contrary to the public interest if, in the opinion of the Commission, it unreasonably increases costs of manufacture or distribution, selling prices, or profits – or if it unreasonably reduces competition, or prevents or limits the supply of goods to consumers.

During the period 1958–65 the Commission held 23 public inquiries and issued 29 orders. The majority of these inquiries dealt with collective pricing arrangements covering a wide range of commodities and services. Two of the cases concerned refusals by trade associations to admit firms as members, and two more related to the refusal by wholesalers to supply goods to retailers. A restrictive tendering arrangement for building work was also involved, and there was an inquiry into a restrictive agency agreement between certain shipping companies and their booking agents. In five of these cases the Commission made no order, because it had not been proven to its satisfaction that trade practices contrary to the public interest were in operation or because the parties had of their own volition abandoned the offending trade practices or had agreed to modify them suitably.

Appeals were successful against orders of the Commission dealing with the pricing of imported books, the issue of price lists by two district associations of master grocers, the shipping companies' agreement with booking agents, and the refusal by a manufacturer to supply proprietary drugs to a wholesaler.

In the First World War and in the immediate post-war years inflationary conditions developed which led to considerable price increases, and attempts were made to restrain price increases by conducting a number of prosecutions under the profiteering sections of the Board of Trade Act of 1919. As soon as the Second World War broke out, price stabilisation was established as Government policy and administrative machinery was set up for dealing with any increases found to be necessary beyond basic levels. These wartime regulations were later replaced by permanent legislation under the Control of Prices Act of 1947. Authority to decide which goods and services shall be subject to price control under the Act is in the hands of the Minister of Industries and Commerce. Prices for goods and services subject to control are determined by the Price Tribunal or the Secretary of Industries and Commerce or officers of the Prices Division of the Department acting under delegation from the Price Tribunal. The extent of control has fluctuated from time to time to meet changing circumstances. Control continues today over a range of items where competition is not sufficiently free to operate as an effective regulator of prices or where the goods concerned are subject to the payment of subsidy by Government.

The limits for decontrol were suggested to Government by the Price Tribunal in 1954, when it listed the conditions and circumstances under which it considered retention of control of the prices of goods and services was necessary:

1. Shortage of goods and services

2. Free competition impeded by such circumstances as:

   1. Exchange control, import control, tariffs.

   2. Licensing.

   3. Monopoly or quasi monopoly.

   4. Restrictive trade practices.

   5. Restrictions on capital issues or credit control.

   6. Space and premises limitations.

3. Government subsidies paid for the purpose of reducing prices to consumers.

4. Unfair prices charged for goods and services not subject to price fixation.

by Geoffrey Leonard Easterbrook Smith, B.COM., Director, Development Division, Department of Industries and Commerce, Wellington and Peter Marcus Wilson, B.A., Advisory Officer, Department of Industries and Commerce, Wellington.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development held in Geneva in 1964 was the culmination of a long period of preparation and of pressure by the poorer nations of the world for international recognition of their economic problems and of the relationship between trade and economic development. The genesis of the Conference is complex. It reflects, among other things, an obvious change in world economic and political contexts since the Second World War, and a shift in thinking about the handling of human and material resources; hence the difference in names of the last world economic conference in Havana in 1948 – the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment – and the 1964 Geneva meeting.

One hundred and twenty countries, including New Zealand, were represented at the Conference. They faced an ambitious programme of wide scope, covering trade and shipping matters, the coordination of trade and aid policies, and the drawing up of general principles for the expansion of international trade.

The examination and identification of fundamental trading and economic issues became the basic task of the Conference. In clear-cut political terms this issue emerged as the transfer of resources from rich countries to poor countries; but the inevitable confrontation between industrialised and developing countries did lead ultimately to certain limited compromise agreements.

In view of the complexity of the issues, the size of the Conference and the difficulties in preparing adequately for it, it is not surprising that only limited progress in trade and economic matters was achieved. Nevertheless important recommendations were agreed that would enable the work started by the Conference to proceed. These included the establishment of the Conference as a continuing organ of the United Nations General Assembly (to be convened at intervals of not more than three years) and the setting up of a representative 55 nation Trade and Development Board. These recommendations were adopted by the General Assembly.

New Zealand was elected to the Trade and Development Board and is a member also of committees established by the Board to carry out studies and make recommendations on questions of international commodity trade and shipping.

by John Joseph Bryant, B.A., Trade Officer, Department of Industries and Commerce, Wellington.

The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations found that several economic problems could best be dealt with regionally, It decided, therefore, to set up regional economic commissions, comprising members of the United Nations in the areas concerned and other members having special interest in those areas. Non-member States and territories of the regions may be elected as associate members. Economic commissions have been established for Europe, for Latin America, for Africa, and for Asia and the Far East. New Zealand's regional interest lies in the last commission. ECAFE was set up in 1947 and has developed a series of subsidiary bodies, including a Committee on Trade and a Committee on Industry and Natural Resources. The deliberations and findings of these committees could affect New Zealand's trade interests in the region. New Zealand therefore takes part in their work. For though New Zealand's economy differs greatly from that of some of its regional neighbours it shares with them a dependence on export trade to earn foreign exchange. This supreme importance of trade enables New Zealand to do specially useful work in ECAFE by attempting to remove barriers to the free trade in primary products in collaboration with its neighbours.

The value of the trade of the less developed countries is eight times greater than total aid given them. As direct aid can often be wiped out in a bad trading period, they consider it important that attempts be made to ease trade in primary products. New Zealand aims to cooperate with its regional neighbours in ECAFE in their efforts to raise their standards of living by faster economic growth based on expanding international trade.

The twenty-first ECAFE Conference was held in Wellington in 1965.