Mr Guthrey’s support of petrol tax bill ;

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32460, 21 November 1970, Page 18

Mr Guthrey’s support of petrol tax bill ;

He was sure that Mr D. B. Rich, the Waimairi County Council’s chairman, would agree that there was a need for local bodies to obtain more revenue to maintain functional services at their present level, said Jll® . Christchurch (Mr A. R. Guthrey) last evening. Discussing Waimairis opposition to the proposed petrol tax for local bodfeVM*Guthrey said that although the Christchurch City Council had budgeted for an increase m wages and salaries of 5150,000, it was now fated with '• an increase of 5400,000.

Increases of this nature added also to the cost of all the services provided and the cost of materials bought. “In addition, we hope to improve the general standard of opr city, to make our city a lively and an interesting place in which to live,” he said. “We neither want nor deserve a drab city, but this does not mean that we are spending money extravagantly. “The new town hall will be a great asset to Christchurch, and something of which we shall all be proud but it will cost money to complete and maintain. “Christchurch is known as the garden city, which reputation we want to maintain. We are constantly improving our gardens and extending reserves. In the last 15 years, we have added 400 acres of parks. Nobody in. his right senses would suggest that we sell any of them.” ADDITIONAL REVENUE For 12 months, a special' local-body committee together with heads of Government departments had been examining every possible source of additional revenue for local bodies, Mr Guthrey, said. They had examined in detail a petrol tax, citizens’ tax, purchase [tax, commodity tax, and a poll tax. The petrol tax was

the only one easily and cheaply collected, and reasonably fair in its application. The Government had indicated that it would not be prepared to administer a citizens’ tax which would have to be adjusted to the P.A.Y.E. system and would be very cumbersome and expensive to administer, Mr Guthrey said. Such a tax would also have no relation to the user-pays concept. More than half the council’s revenue was spent on roads and work associated with roads, Mr Guthrey said. For this reason alone, it seemed fair that any additional revenue should be provided by the road-user. The majority of young people, both married and unmarried, living in flats and apartment houses and not paying rates, were regular users of the motor-car, and the tax would enable them to make a contribution. The petrol tax would have

the least impact on thoje less ; able to afford an increase in rates, such as pensioners and people on fixed incomes who - used a car sparingly. The only alternative was to in- 2 crease rates—with an unfair ', burden on those very people. Mr Guthrey said that the j average citizen who used his 4 car to and from work would pay an increase of about 6c a week. On the other hand, the { total revenue available to local bodies would be consid- 4 erable, and would be used for the benefit of the whole com-' j munity. . ' - 1 “To obtain the same ' amount of revenue we would have to increase rates by about 25 per cent,” he said. * If the Government had elded on any other form of tax there would have been just as many objections from the people affected by it—and this would have been almost everybody, Mr Guthrey said.