Transport Bill, tax issue emphasise the two party lines

Press, 19 September 1977, Page 2

Transport Bill, tax issue emphasise the two party lines

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

Parliament was almost a haven for local members last week, compared with the i Minogue-Muldoon squall ragging outside. Back-benchers, trained in jthe more balanced and cooperative atmosphere of the iselect committees, were responsible for notable progress in moving legislation along. As expected, the Transport Amendment (No. 2) Bill, giving effect to the Budget proposal to extend the legitimate road-rail competition area from 40 miles to 150 kilometres, occasioned some sharp discussion. The former Minister of Transport, Sir Basil Arthur (Lab., Timaru) described it as “a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”

"I and my colleagues would certainly have preferred legislation to phase in the proposals over a period of two or three years, thereby avoiding some of the anomalies which we are now getting through bringing in the 150 kilometre limit across the board,” Sir Basil said. "1 am not opposed to extending the limit — but it should have been done in smaller stages.” He said that the limit could first have been extended to 60 miles, or the equivalent, then, after 12 months, there could have been a further extension, after anomalies had been studied. As it was, opportunities for consultation during the last 12 months had been non-existent. He noted that the regulations had not been sighted, and wondered whether they were yet in draft form.

Mr E. G. Latter (Nat., Marlborough) described Sir Basil’s speech as nonsense. “If he likes the proposal, why did the Labour Government do nothing about it in its three years of office? If this sort of thing were phased in over two or three ■ years, the member for Timaru would be even more confused than he is now . . . : "He mentioned extension !to the 60-mile limit,” said Mr Latter. “He talked about lack of consultation over the last 12 months; he talked about a ‘think tank,’ in the end he talked about the Green Paper. Hasn’t he heard of the Wilbur Smith Report? He had that report as Minister, but what did he do with it? Nothing. "He objected to the arbitrary distance of 93 miles,

■or 150 kilometres. Even a child in the primers would 'realise that any distance that is set will not suit; everybody — someone will be inconvenienced. “The Labour Government brought in the 30-mile limit in 1936 — and made no attempt to change it,” said Mr Walker. After lauding Sir Basil Arthur’s work as Minister of Transport, Mr N. J. Kirk (Lab., Sydenham) described the new bill as “a botch job by a botch Government. . . Under this Government, transport is a half-pieism,” Mr Kirk said. He said that the Minister of Transport (Mr McLachlan) had overlooked the needs of the Road Transport Association.

“Opposition members have been speaking to that association, but it is obvious that the Minister has not. The association requires detailed study, and a chance to put its case about a bill that is thrust upon it. The Minister of Transport does not see that need.”

Miss C. E. Dewe (Nat., Lyttelton) had some blunt things to say about the Labour Government’s socalled Green Paper on transport. “I am sure that members, as well as those people involved in the transport industry, will recall that Green Paper with abhorrence, because it suggested the building of another Gov-ernment-backed finance corporation to compete with private carriers,” she said.

‘‘The member for Sydenham had obviously not listened to the comments made by the member for Timaru,” Miss Dewe said, “because he insisted that the bill would spell the demise of the small carrier, and would build monopolies. I do not know how he reconciles his attitude to the Green Paper and a Government corporation.”

Miss Dewe also mentioned the shelving of the Wilbur Smith Report by the Labour Government. The report had recommended the replacement of the 40-mile limit by a special road tax on longdistance transportation.

Single income tax

An interesting debate on taxation developed late on Thursday evening. Mr D. F. Quigley (Nat., Rangiora) picked up a comment by the

former Minister of Finance, Mr R. J. Tizard (Lab., Otahuhu), who had said that the Government had not done ' enough for the single-income family. ! "I ask him to reflect on what tile Labour Government [did for people in that cateigory,” Mr Quigley said. “The [ figures show that it did nothing at all. “Following the recent Budget changes, the family man on the average male wage, with a dependent wife, and a child under five, now gets 83.67 per cent of his gross earnings after tax. “Let me contrast that figure with the percentage received by the same person during the time of the former Labour Government. In 1973 he received 80.25 per cent of his gross earnings; 12 months later, the figure had fallen to just over 78 per cent. “In the following year it was slightly better — and then, in the last 12-month period in the 1975-76 year, it was a mere 76.27 per cent — compared, as I have said, with the present figure of 83.67 per cent of gross earnings left after tax. “The member (Mr Tizard), when talking about superannuation, failed to mention that the Labour Party, if it had remained in office, would now have been taking from that particular taxpayer an additional 2.5 per cent of his gross earnings, or an extra $3.50 a week.”

The former Minister of Police, Mr M. A. Connelly (Lab., Wigram) said that the member for Rangiora had not given much comfort to people .who had been looking to the Government for some relief from their present taxation burden, nor to the National Party supporters who at their conference in Dunedin had demanded a more equitable taxation deal — for the family man in particular.

"Members opposite have talked about the concessions applying to single-income families with children five and under,” Mr Connelly Said. “But why not a tax concession for every singleincome family? “If it is good enough to give a concession to those with dependent children, why restrict that concession to children under five? Everyone knows that the cost of maintaining a child increases as that child gets older.”