THE PETROL TAX

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 24, 29 January 1929, Page 10

THE PETROL TAX

PORTION FOR TRAMWAYS

MINISTER FAVOURABLE

(By Telegraph.) (Special to "The Evening Post.")

CHKISTCHURCH, This Day

The Minister of Public Works (the Hon. B. A. Hansom) admitted that a just claim had been made when the Ghristchurch Tramway Board placed before him yesterday its caso for receiving a portion of the petrol tax. The board also asked that it should be relieved from tho liability for maintaining the roadway between the sets- of double .tracks.

Mr. J. A. Fleslier, ehairxnan of the board, said that the Tramway Board was at present losing about £10,000 a year. It had fii'ty-threo route miles of tramways to maintain, and under tho Tramways Act there was provision that where there- were double- tracks the tramway authority should maintain the surface occupied by tho tracks and eighteen inches outside tho rails. In Christclnirch, however, the Tramway. Board had to maintain not only that area, but also the space between tlo tracks,'aii extra amount oi! five feet. That was imposed by Order-in-Council and the board was seeking to have that order repealed and its liability confined to what was imposed by the Act. Tho board was being penalised beyond all reason. In view of the fact that the city received considerable benefit from the petrol tax the board considered it had a claim for consideration in regard to that tax. Tho board's claim was a very strong one. It. was running buses and was paying petrol tax and its case was absolutely unanswerable. It was costing the board £20,000 a year to maintain its tracks and its work was done so much better than that of the local body that the traffic used the board's portion. The motorists preferred the tracks of the Tramway B6ard, and surely when the revenue was coming from that source thero was a good case for consideration. The board was hit by the motors more than anything else, and the motors were robbing them of legitimate revenue. If the board coulf" get the assistance it sought it would result in an improvement of its position.

Messrs. E. J. Howard and J. M'Combs, M.P.'s, also spoke in support of the board's claim.

The Minister said that he had given consideration to the matter and had, as a matter of fact, already drafted a letter to the City Council regarding it. He had deferred signing the letter, however, until he had had an opportunity of meeting the deputation. The board had a particularly just claim, although, perhaps, not a legal claim. It might bo necessary for the matter to be treated as one of urgency and dealt with by Order-in-Council. The claim seemed to be so fair that he doubted if there would be any need for a Commission. He hoped the matter would soon be settled.