Petrol Bill’s title clause passed

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32460, 21 November 1970, Page 3

Petrol Bill’s title clause passed

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 20. Fears of another late sitting of Parliament were dispelled this afternoon when the House rose only 40 minutes later than usual for a Friday.

The Government had moved urgency on the committee stages of the Local I Authorities (Petroleum Tax) Bill but, when the' Acting Prime Minister (Mr Shelton) moved that the committee “report progress,” only the short title of the 36-clause bill had been disposed of. After two hours and a half of debate, the Government successfully moved the closure of the first clause. It won la division on the move by 40 : votes to 39 and the clause was passed by a similar vote.

I The Minister in charge of the bill (Mr Seath) the MinisI ter for Local Government) ini troduced an amendment ex- ; empting fuel oil from the tax i and also exempting shipping : and commercial fishing ves- : seis. He said that industries which used large amounts of ■ fuel oil were not evenly distributed through the country I and if the product was inclui ded this would mean a wind- : fall for a few areas. “Some removed” But Mr Kirk said the amendment created iniquities 1 rather than removed them. The Government had said that local bodies needed sl6m land then without reference' Ito them had removed sl.sm from the tax. Earlier in the debate Mr IJ. G. O’Brien (Lab., Island I Bay) said that permission to local bodies to levy a petrol I tax of up to 3c a gallon would obstruct any genuine ’move to reform local body finance. Mr M. A. Connelly (Lab., Wigram) said the bill was “a further savage blow -by the Government at the cost structure of the farming industry.” The Government had long since lost touch with the needs of the farming industry land were ignoring their plight. I Mr W. L. Young (Nat., Mir-1 lamar) said the Opposition was just being destructive. He believed the bill was a pracItical measure which set out I to do something the ratepayers expected the Governmentto do—give some relief in rates. Ashburton County Mr C. C. A. (Nat., Ashburton) said he had been authorised by the chairman of the Ashburton County Council to say that if this bill did not go through, rates in the county next year would increase 16 per cent. “The county chairman says that if this bill goes through they are considering reducing: rates,” Mr McLachlan said. I Sir Basil Arthur (Lab., Ti[rnaru) said the bill was wrong in principle and a dangerous I precedent.