HEAVY LORRIES

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 55, 14 September 1928, Page 9

HEAVY LORRIES

TAXATION QUESTION IS IT TOO HIGH? I OPINIONS OP MEMBERS The discussion on the question of heavy traffic fees was continued in tho House of Representatives yesterday after "Tho Post" went to press, tho Industries and Commerce Committeo having expressed the view that thoso who Bad petitioned Parliament asking for relief in tho matter of taxation on heavy motor vehicles were entitled to some consideration. Mr. V. H. Potter (Roskill) considered that the amount of heavy motor traffic competition with the railways was infinitesimal. Tho facts placed before the Industries and Commerce Coininitteo had not been refuted. He supported the recommendation of the Committee because the heavy tax w~as unjust. Mr. T. M. Wilford (Hutt) said owners of heavy vehicles found the taxes a heavy impost, coming on top of other taxes. It did not matter how the taxes wero levied; they had to bo paid. When the taxes on heavy vehicles were fixed it was thought there would bo no petrol tax. It had to be remembered that largo firms had to keep one or more vehicles in reserve, lrat the taxes had to be paid whether the vehicles wero in use or not. He thought somo relief ought to be granted, and he hoped the Government would seriously consider tho matter. THE COUNTRY VIEWPOINT. Mr. D. Jones (Ellesmere) said tho heavy traffic fees and the petrol tax were entirely different. Voices: "They both have to be paid.'' Mr. Jones said tho heavy traffic fees wero intended to meet the case of roads that were cut up unduly. The whole question seemed to be a city one. He was not objecting to 08 per cent., and the tax going back to tho cities, but tho heavy trucks cut up the country roads. Mr. J. A. Lee: "They are paying for them." Tho fact that moro goods wero likely to bo transported by road in futuro justified the imposition of a heavy traffic tax, continued Mr. Jones. Mr. J. S. Dickson: "Aren't the roads classified?" Mr. Jones admitted this, but contended that if the heavy vehicles cut up the roads they should pay for those roads. The heavy vehicles must pay a fair sharo of taxation and not havo the burden placed on tho country. Tho Dominion would be let in for millions in tho way of expenditure if the heavy traffic fees were taken off and" the heavy vehicles were allowed to cut up the roads. Mr. H. G-. B. Mason (Eden) said it did not matter through which account the fees passed so long as tho money was spent on the roads. Tho member for Ellesmere had taken up a great deal of time in telling members what they already knew very well. Tho heavy traffic fees were putting out of business a number of men whose financial position was such that they could not meet the tax. That was not economically sound, and not in the best interests of tho country. A good deal of the destruction which resulted to the roads was duo to the heavy tax, which caused firms to use fewer vehicles than thoy would with lighter taxes and tooverwork their vehicles. Mr. C. E. Maemillan (Tauranga) said tho petrol tax had nothing to do with the question at all, as it bore no more severely on heavy vehicles than it did on light vehicles. There could be no doubt that heavy traffic did require moro expensive roads, and the only point was whether the Government could make tho distribution of tho tax more equitable. The Hon. D. Buddo (Kaiapoi) expressed tho view that the problem of heavy traffic had been approached from the wrong end. He believed that trucks of over four tons should never have been allowed on the roads. (Hear, hear.) BETTER DISTRIBUTION. Mr. A. Harris (Waitcmata) said a largo percentage of tho heavy vehicles did not go into tho country at all, but confined their operations to the cities. Ho wanted to see tho taxation distributed moro equitably. Greater supervision should be exercised over the speed of vehicles on country roads. Mr. E. N. Bartram (Grey Lynn) remarked that tho petitioners had put forward a very strong ease indeed. An industry of that kind should not be taxed out of all proportion to the necessity for such taxation. Heavy vehicles were absolutely necessary for the efficiency of industry. It seemed absurd to say that the people who used the roads should have to pay the initial capital costs of roads which would be used by posterity. The prayer of the petition should bo granted. Mr. T. D. Burnett (Temuka) referred to the question of over-taxation of transport services which fed the railways from tho b.ack districts, and said there was no equity in their being taxed heavily when thoy were performing a fine service to the railways and the public. He advocated a differentiated charge in their favour. Speaking in support of tho report, Mr. H. Atmore (Nelson) said ho thought a lot of nonsense was talked about tho heavy vehicle damaging the roads excessively. It had boon shown that tho heavy vehicles wero paying about £2 15s in taxation, as against 4s a week in tho case of tho light car, l)ut it had not been shown that tho heavy car was doing from 12 to 15 times as much damago as the light car. It was. the opinion of the Committee that the owners of heavy vehicles had made out an unanswerable case, and ho supported the recommendation. The recommendation was also favoured by Sir John Luke (Wellington North), who declared that the bulk of the heavy traffic did not go beyond the suburbs of the cities. Impartial analysis showed that the heavy vehicle owners had made a very good case. The Government could readjust the taxation to give relief to tho heavy vehicles, but he did not think it should bo necessary to increase the petrol tax. Mr. J. Horn (Wakatipu) said that r <t one per cent, of the motor vehicles ia his district were competing with the railways: they wero acting rather as foeders, and that w^as the hard part of tho heavy taxation. The lorries which acted as feeders should receive somo consideration, although ho had "no time" for tho vehicles which competed with tho Railways. CAREFUL REVIEW NECESSARY. The Minister of Industries and Commerce (the Hon. A. D. M'Leod) said that quite a good deal of evidence had been submitted which he did not think could bo borne out by examination later on. Ho did not believe this country was putting heavier imposts on motor-ve-hicles than any other country in the world. Tho motor traffic of till countries was increasing, and the. whole problem of motor taxation should be carefully reviewed by the Government before any change in tho system of levying the taxation was made. He was sympathetic with the view that an examination should be made of the question of effecting an adjustment. It ■?£m Ms opinion that if the taxation

on heavy and light lorries was equalised tho light vehicles would drive the heavy ones off the road. Mr. H. Holland (Christchurch North) submitted that tho heavy vehicle was already paying sufficient, as it ran only four or five miles to tho gallon of petrol, as against twenty miles in the case of the fast-travelling light vehicle. The large surplus in the hands of the Highways Board indicated that the taxation was excessive. Mr. If. W. Smith (Waimarino) submitted that the petrol tax was much more equitable than a flat tax. Tho very heavy vehicle should bo discouraged, for it damaged tho roads excessively. Mr. W. H. Field (Otaki) considered that a readjustment of the tax was required. Tho matter required the careful consideration of the Government and the Highways Board. He knew where a motor-lorry owner had gone bankrupt because of tho heavy taxation. Mr. W. L. Martin (Raglan) said further investigation was necessary before any alteration was made in the existing system. Tho fact that hardship had been imposed in ono or two cases was not sufficient reason for tho removal of the taxes. It was not correct to (say that the heavy vehicles did not make use of the roads in tho country districts, and it was" his opinion that the taxes were justified. If he could he would put the heavy traffic off the country roads altogether. . Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Eiccarton): "Mussolini." (Laughter.) Mr. A. Hamilton (Wallace) said it was always popular to ask for a relief of taxation, but it was not always so popular to say who was going to make up for the loss of revenue. He doubted whether the owners of heavy vehicles were contributing as much to tho upkeep of tho roads as they should, and in this respect they were competing unfairly with the railways. If tho carrying companies reorganised their businesses they would be able to reduce capital charges and running costs, and it would not then be necessary for them to seek relief from the Government. He disagreed with the finding of the committee. A NATIONAL QUESTION. In support of the commitee's finding, Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) said ho believed the national highways should be a charge on the national revenue, as it was entirely a national question. He agreed that the small man was being taxed off the road. If tho Railway Department could not meet its competitors fairly and squarely, it should cease to exist, but he believed it could compete. He hoped the Government would take steps this session to give relief to tho honvy transport proprietors. Mr. J. R. Hamilton (Awania) s;iid a charge of 5s per day or Id per ton could not be considered excessive. He opposed tho committee's finding. The chairman of the committee, Mr. W. J. Girling (Wairau) said that the evidence showed conclusively that the heavy commercial vehicles were overcharged as compared with tho lighter vehicles. He referred to tho comparative petrol consumption and the other higher charges on the heavy vehicle, and said it could not be said that the proportionate charges were equitable. The tax iii Great Britain, based on horse-power, amounted to from £12 to £20, as compared with £2 in Now Zealand. This again showed that the heavy vehicles wero paying too much in proportion to the lighter vehicles. The report was laid on tho table.