TAXATION ON FARMERS’ LORRIES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume LII, Issue 4794, 11 August 1932, Page 3

TAXATION ON FARMERS’ LORRIES.

MANAWATU COUNTY COUNCIL’S VIEWS. The letter which was before the Foxton Borough Council on Monday relative to the proposed remission of heavy traffic fees on farm vehicles. was presented for an expression of opinion at Tuesday’s 'Mariawatu County Council meeting. The Chairman (Mr. W. E. Barber) : This is a matter that is worrying the minds of farmers. It is a bit. hard on them if they have a lorry to run their cream to the factory, as the tax is a severe one. At the recent meeting of farmers in the district very strong views were expressed on the subject. There is another factor and that is, before the Highways Board came into existence, the settlers had provided the roads and were paying for them through their rates and now they are asked to pay a heavy tax for the right to run on the roads they had formed.”

ICr. J. Boyce agreed and remarked that while the settlers wer, still paying special rates on the roads they had formed they were now obliged to pay a heavy tax to run on the roads. It seemed to the speaker totally unfair especially when others who probably did not pay rates, used the roads. Cr. J. H. Perrett. suggested that the tax on farmers’ lorries should be considerably reduced, if ( not cut out altogether.

The chairman said that the amount of £30,000 'which would be lost if the tax were taken off, when spread over the whole of New Zealand, would not mean so much to individual local bodies. Cr. J. F. McKelvie remined the council that the tendency was towards road transport by motor vehicle for fat lambs and sheep and he wished to know whether vehicles used for that purpose would be exempted from the tax. The chairman thought that this opened up a (bigger, question but Councillor McKelvie felt it was almost in line with the representations which had been made regarding a farmer’s lorry used exclusively for the carriage of farm produce.

Cr. Boyce moved that the council record its opinion as being in favour of farmers’. lorries being exempted. The chairman raised the issue of tonnage. Would the council ask for the exemption of all farmers’ motor lorries irrespective of tonnage ? Cr. Perrett felt that the council should have time to fully consider the issue. It was not a matter to be dealt with hurriedly —the tonnage question illustrated this. He did not think that there was any hurry to come to a decision. *Cr. Boyce emphasised) that fanners were obliged to pay £l7 and more a year heavy vehicle tax to enable them to run on roads- which they had formed and metalled themselves. There was nothing in his resolution which, could be said to be hurrying the position. The resolution read: —That the Transport Department be informed that in the opinion of the Alanawatu County Council, where a farmer is using his own motor 'vehicle for carriage 'of his own farm produce only, that the vehicle be exempt from heavy traffic fees. But there was the point raised by Councillor McKelvie regarding the carriage of fat lambs, which had to be considered, remarked Councillor Perrett, who wished to know what would be his position if he carrjed his lambs per motor truck to, say, Feilding? The chairman agreed that the question required greater consideration, after which definite views could be expressed. It was agreed' to refer the matter to the chairman, Councillor Perrett, the county clerk and the county engineer for investigation and report to the nGxt meeting of the council.

Cr. Boy<*o did not agree that the' exemption of farmers’ motor lorries would require'additional traffic inspectors to detect cases where farmers carried ot-he than their own produce. He claimed that . the council would hear about anything of the kind quick enough and would not have to pay for the information.

The Kairanga County Council decided on Tuesday that it was in favour of the position remaining as as present.