FOURPENCE STANDS

Evening Star, Issue 19712, 12 November 1927, Page 5

FOURPENCE STANDS

PETROL TAX BILL PASSES RECONSIDERATION OF CiTIES' SHARE OF REVENUE PROMISED MOVE TO EARMARK SOUTHERN PORTION FAILS JJEOM Our PaRLIAUENTABT h’srOETER.] AVELLINGTON, November ( 11.. Consideration of the Motor Spirits Tax Hill in Committee of the House to-night' opened with an unsuccessful attempt by Mr AlnnJiv (Nelson) to reduce the tax to L’d. The matter was not debated, and the motion was lost by 39 votes to 19. 'Another interesting effort was by Mr Sidcy (Dunedin South), who moved a new clause—

That the proceeds _ of, the tax be apportioned in the discretion of the Highways Board between the North and South Islands on the basis of the number of motor vehicles registered in the respective islands.

The mover said his proposal was embodied in the tyro tax legislation, and payment of fees, and he had followed the wording of the present law. If the principle was sound, in one case, it was sound in another.

Mr Lysnar (Gisborne): Two wrongs don’t make a right. Mr Sidey argued that the omission of this principle from the petrol tax might completely nullify the good effect of the other tax appointments. This was not a question of North versus South Island, hut of securing a fair distribution.

Mr Lysnar urged members to throw out the motion. He had never favored the original apportionment, but the Minister had to make this unfair compromise because his Highways Bill was held up for years. Mr Sullivan (Avon) declared that the amendment, being in permissive terms, could fairly bo accepted. It left the final discretion in the hands of the board.

Mr T. W. Rhodes (Thames): Leave them full discretion. The Prime Minister (to Mr Sullivan): Would you apply the same principle to railways ? Mr Sullivan: The South Island paid for its railways and handed them over to the general Government. Mr Bitchcner: Six millions’ worth. Mr Sullivan declared that there was a good deal of dissatisfaction already in the South Island over the main highways scheme, and if Mr Sidey’s clause was rejected there would be a big howl from motorists. v Mr Veitch (Wanganui), as a North Island member, supported the motion. Tho tax was supposed to levy a charge in proportion to use. How many South Island motorists used North Island roads? Unless they got the exact proportion of t-Ldr contributions spent in the South Island they got no benefit. THE CITY SHARE. Mr Potter (Roslcill) intercepted this amendment with one which raised the question of the proportion of revenue payable to boroughs of over 6,000 population. He moved— That the proportion payable be-in-creased from 8 to 12 per cent. The Prime Minister stated that the matter had been fully discussed with the Wellington City ' authorities, and the Government had promised to take out certain figures with a view to considering tho situation. Whatever was done must apply to everybody. He could not give his answer immediately. Possibly they would have to select some suburban highways near the cities, and they would have to lose some of it. Another possibility was that, whore possible, existing roads for which city councils were responsible might be taken over. If an alteration was made an amendment would ho introduced in the Legislative Council. The Government recognised that there were difficulties in Wellington, but it might ho no different from the difficulties in Auckland. Christchurch, and Dunedin. Sir John Luke (Wellington North) advised Mr Potter to withdraw his amendment in face of tho Government’s assurance and the fact that 12 per cent, of the total revenue might not bo enough to meet the heavy obligations of tho big cities. Mr Hockley (chairman of committee) ruled out Mr Potter’s amendment as the subsequent clause had already been reached. Discussion was therefore resumed on Mr Sidey’s amendment regarding tho allocation of tax revenue. Mr Forbes (liunmui) strongly supported the amendment as fair and reasonable. It needed strong spectacles to sec the proportion of highways funds spent in the South Island, and if any North Island member had a grievance he was welcome to voice it. "ALWAYS FAIR AND HONEST." The Minister of Works said he could not accept Mr Sidey’s amendment. _ It was not that he had any feeling against tho South island members. He did not think there should be any distinction between the North and South Islands. Ho did not know how long he would bo in charge of the fund, but he would always try to be as fair and honest as possible. But that was not the point." What was important was that the money should not be tied up any more definitely than could bo helped. Those parts in the South Island which most needed money for roads were, as a rule, far removed from the centres of population. The West Coast naturally required more than Canterbury and Otago, which were districts much better able to bear their proportion. 11 travellers were going to he given proper facilities in parts of the South island where the scenic beauties were found, then money would have to be spent. The Minister gave his word that tne South Island would not be pitted against the North Island. Mr Bitchcner (Waitaki) hoped Mr Sidey would allow his amendment to go on the voices. He could not support it. Personally ho believed tho South Island had been very fairly treated by the Main Highways Board. Too much was made of the South v. North question. Down in the South Island they wore not great borrowers. They lived within their means.

Mr Horn (Wakatipu) expressed surprise at Mr Bitcheuer’s remarks. If the member for Waitaki could see some of the back-country roads in the Soum Island bp would not speak in that way. He agreed with Mr Sidey that the South Island should have its money earmarked in some way in order to get a fair share. Mr Forbes said what was fair and just for the South Island was, after all. a matter of opinion. There were several South Island members present, and ho was surprised that the Minister should refuse to accept the amendment. He had to protest ou behalf of southern motorists against the position being altered from what it was under the tyre tax. Mr Taplcy (Dunedin North) said ho did noV want to give a silent vote nor raise the North y. South issue, but there way a feeling that the North was getting /iore than the South. The present Minister had promised just treatment, but he might not always be, in charge of the fund, and something definite should go on to the Statute Book. There was a great deal to be done in the South. Miles and miles of roads between Christchurch and Dunedin were in “ a rotten state.” Mr Sidey said he realised it was

futile to press for the amendment. Hi could only trust to the Minister’s sense of justice. Therefore ho would taka the amendment on the voices. Mr Wilford (Hutt) said Mr Sidev might be able to stop the clock or the sun, but he would have to have a good dooal of faith to alter the present position. (Laughter.) The amendment was Ig8$«