HEAVY TRAFFIC FEES

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 256, 27 July 1939, Page 13

HEAVY TRAFFIC FEES

Question Of Payment By Farmers COUNTIES DIFFER After a keen discussion on the payment of heavy traffic fees by farmers, in which marked differences of opinion were expressed, the New Zealand Counties’ Association last night rejected three amendments to a motion and the original motion. The question was thus left In its present position where the individual counties decide whether the tax should be paid or not. Mr. W. Morrison (Maxwell) said that the main highways and motor transport committee recommended that the lieavj’ traffic fees payable by bonafide farmers on heavy motor vehicles owned or used exclusively by farmers for the cartage of their own farm goods be reduced 33 1-3 per cent, on the scale provided in the heavy motor vehicles regulations. There was one dissentient on the committee, zk letter from the Commissioner of Transport gave a hint that the Government was going to review the matter at an early date with the object of making an amendment to the regulations. If the conference pressed for the abolition of the fees, other sections of the community would want it and everything might be lost. The heavy traffic interests had been pressing the Govern ment for a number of years to do away with all heavy traffic licence fees. The money lost through not receiving the fees would have to be made up somehow. The sum of £300,000 would have to be made up, and the only way would be by an increase in rates. He moved the committee’s recommendation as a motion. Mr. K. W. Dalrymple (Kangitikel) seconded the motion. Mr. J. A. Murdoch (Westland) said he opposed the motion. It would mean getting in the thin edge of the wedge for other industries. Horse-Drawn Traffic. Mr. W. C. Green (Egmont) asked why the Transport Department placed the onus on the county council to decide whether fees should be charged. The heavy traffic licence fee, if it were enforced, would be one of the greatest impositions ever put on the ratepayers, and particularly the milk producers. Mr. A. L. Campbell (Eltham) said the farmer paid the petrol tax and the tyre tax and the association now wanted to put another tax on him because he wanted to take bis milk to the factory. The matter should be left to the local bodies interested. The roads had been paid for, and to ask the farmer for the tax was an absolute injustice. Mr. J. Ritchie (Vincent), who opposed the remit, said all farmers were right up against it at present. The fruit-growers in his district said they would be prepared to pay £1 a year licence fee. Mr. J. B. Murdoch (Hawera) said that neither the dairy nor the fruitfarmer could pass on an Increase In costs. For that reason it would be unfair to ask him to pay the tax. Mr. W. Kennedy (Piako) moved an amendment that the Government be asked to bring down legislation giving exemption to farmers’ lorries carting the farmers’ produce. The amendment was seconded. The amendment was put and lost. A. further amendment that the reduction be 50 per cent, instead of 33 1-3 per cent, was lost. A third amendment that all licence fees for farmers’ vehicles be £1 was also lost. When the motion was put it was defeated 'by 51 votes to 33. President’s View. As matters stood at present the sound course appeared to be to continue to charge a heavy traffic fee to farmers, said the president of the association, Mr. C. J. Talbot, in an address in the morning.

The heavy traffic fees remained the property of the local bodies within a heavy traffic district, said Mr. Talbot. In some of those districts the county councils had for some years refrained from collecting the fees from farmers who. were carrying their own goods. Though there were no statutory powers, discretionary powers had been given county councils by the Transport Department to waive heavy traffic fees on bona-fide farmers’ vehicles of two tons or over. The Transport Department had decided that when farmers were found carting their own goods without the authority of a heavy traffic licence, the local authority was requested to state whether or not it desired the Transport Department to prosecute, and no such prosecution was taken without the consent of the local authority.