TRANSPORT BILL Govt. Back-bencher Opposes Clause

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31379, 26 May 1967, Page 12

TRANSPORT BILL Govt. Back-bencher Opposes Clause

(New Zealand Press Association) ' WELLINGTON, May 25. A senior Government back-bencher said in Parliament tonight that he would vote against the Government’s plan to switch the 4d a gallon increase in petrol tax from the National Roads Board to the Government.

Mr W. H. Brown (Nat., Palmerston North) who is a member of the Roads Board, gave notice during the second reading of the Transport Amendment Bill that he would cross the floor on a clause which provides for the petrol tax increase to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Account instead of the National Roads Fund.

But he said he would vote with the Government on the bill itself.

Mr Brown said the extra petrol tax imposed in the mini-budget, the increase in

mileage tax and the increase in heavy traffic fees should be paid to the Roads Board. “These are absolutely sacrosant to the board,” he said. “To my mind these three main items provide the basis on which the board was established.” Mr Brown called for an increase of not less than £3 million from the Consolidated Account this year to the Roads Board—instead of the £1,500, 000 budgeted for. Listing the financial difficulties faced by the Roads Board, which was heavily committed to major projects, he said the board was faced with a cut in estimates of 10 per cent and the loss of registration fees for motor vehicles to the Consolidated Account

The National member said registration fees were worth £3,500,000 to the Roads Board. “KNEW OF INCREASE”

The Opposition caused a furore tonight when it claimed that the Government knew before the general election last year that it would increase motor licence fees.

Mr B’ P. McDonell (Lab., Dunedin Central) produced a 1967-68 application form for a licence and nomination for insurance for motor-vehicles. He said that it listed on the schedule the new licence fee of £s—and that the form was printed in October, 1966, a month before the election. Mr A. D. Dick (Nat., Waitaki) replied that the Post Office required two million application forms a year and consequently orders had to be placed a long time in advance.

“The date the member was referring to is the reference number of the printer,” Mr Dick said. He held up a similar form with the date “March, 1967” on it. Mr S. A. Whitehead (Lab., Nelson )said the Opposition was not questioning the Government’s right to have the forms printed—it was questioning its reasons for not informing the public of its intention to increase licence fees.

The Minister in Charge of the Government Printing Office (Mr Scott) said he prepared to wager that no member of the Opposition could produce official documentary proof that the Government had placed the order in October for the registration forms with the new charges added.

He denied that the forms were printed in October.

The decision to increase registration fees had been made so late that the Government Printer was forced in March and-April to send out registration forms with the last pages blank. The last page covered reg-

istration and third party insurance fees, he said. Mr Scott said that the October date on the forms was the time in which the order was normally placed for the next year’s forms.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) said the Government was concealing from the electorate at the time of the Fendalton and Petone byelections its intention to increase registration fees. “If by mid-April some forms were being sent out blank then I suggest at that point of time the Government intended increasing registration fees,” he said. “They were being considered but not discussed,” interjected the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake). Mr Kirk said this example was further evidence of how the Government had concealed its intentions from the electorate.

At midnight, after three divisions won by the Government, the bill was given a second reading, and the House began putting it through the committee stages.