MOTOR TAXATION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 28 October 1935, Page 4

MOTOR TAXATION

TRANSPORT BOARD’S REPORT “A WORTHLESS DOCUMENT” MOTOR UNIONS’ COMMENTARY Ihe report of tlie Transport Coordination .Board, which twelve months ago conducted an enquiry into Motor .taxation, has at last been made public, states an official commentary issued bv the North and South Island Motor Cmons. Any value which might have attached to the report is discounted bv delay in publication, by the manner in wlma certain important evidence was taken in private, and by the misconstruction of other evidence. It was understood by the Automobile Associations and other parties who gave evidence that the enquiry was being held in public.’ Indeed in its report the board states “Tlie enquiry was held in public. During tlie course of the proceedings opportunity was given interest-’ ctl parties to test evidence bv crossexamination. It now appears from the leport that vital ex parte evidence or statements were subsequently (submitted to the board in private by Treasury and Transport Department officials. No opportunity was given to the representatives of the people who pay motor taxes .to cross-examine these witnesses, \vlu> naturally would tender evidence justliving the views of their own ments..The. .Co-ordination Board quotes evidence verbatim tendered by the Christchurch Tramways Board, and then proceecls to report: “We take-.no responsi-rpl,-ty. or the grammar of this passage.” Ibis is pure snobbery, and gratuitously insulting to an honest and sincere witness. . ; . Dealing with evidence tendered by counsel for the Municipal Association relative to apportionment of taxation between cities and boroughs, the ’ board states “He failed to adduce any 'evk; deuce whatever in support of his claim.”;, this statement is most unfair to counsel •who stated to the board’ that he had cheeked the calculations submitted by T the -Motor Unions on the point, and found, them satisfactory. Surely even the Transport Co-ordination Board would not want to hear the same evidence twice, and .Mr O’Shea’s checking and acceptance of evidence already submitted to the board refutes the suggestion that he failed to adduce any evidence - what- ‘ - .. In one respect at least tlie board in its finding puts words/into a witness’s mouth. It states that the representative • of the Motor Trade Federation said “that in relation to the upkeep of‘ the roads over which they travel, motor vehicles are not over-taxed as regards : petrol,”: Mr Cousins did not make an unqualified statement of this kind, and we challenge the board to prove that he' did. . ■ ‘

’ The board recommends that- .vehicles > of a loaded weight of under three |ton’s f suould be exempt from the payment of heavy traffic fees, and that local autlil orities be compensated for the .loss of rei venue by a subsidy of £1 for every £3 i received by them in respect of heavy ! traffic fees The board knows, or should r know,' ‘that heavy traffic fees have not i been collected in certain districts on ; farmers’ trucks, and if its unqualified re- ■ commendation of a subsidy were given • effect to then those local bodies which have not collected heavy traffic fees from farmers would be compensated under the board’s proposal. for something that they have not lost. Tins imports quite a new principle -into taxation, if it is intended seriously.'In then course of evidence tendered lor- the Motor: Unions it was stated that; as in many cases the duty oil cars'of American origin equalled the wholesale cost of the vehicle in the United States, it would appear that American cars at all events were still being taxed as a luxury, and it was submitted that a Customs duty of approximately 100 per cent, on cost placed altogether too great a load on transport. The board was also reminded that the 1934 Tariff Commission expressed the opinion “That owing to the, importance of the transport industry. it is desirable that the cost of vehicle's to the public should be reduced to a minimum.’' Having heard this evidence the board proceeds to make itself ridiculous by reporting, “We do not share the anxiety of the Automobile Associations for the welfare of the American car manufacturer or importer, and doubt if there is any real body of opinion outside interested‘circles opposed to tlie principle of a substantial preference for Empire goods.” The evidence submitted by the Motor Unions was a fair slatrAieitu, and such an 'unjustified imputation of lack of patriotism against the Automobile Associations, directed as they afe by gentlemen of proved citizenship, does not become the board and will add to the grave doubts existing as to the value of some of the Governmentappointed commissions and of this one in particular. While admitting that the policy of ear-marking taxation for special purposes is outside the scope of tile enquiry, the board says that it believes such a policy is open to serious question, and suggests that all motor taxation should be paid into the Consolidated. Fund, and annual grants made to the High- _ ways Board therefrom. If this were* given effect to i. would mean that qur loading finance would drift hack to' the bad old days of political control. Authorities the world over are known to disagree with the Transport Co-ordinatioii Board on this point, but the board is obviously so far out of its depth that no one is likely to take serious notice cf its views. ■•‘V; ■ It is greatly to be deplored that the report on Motor Taxation is such a poor effort. The procedure of taking ex parte evidence in private makes the whole report such an utterly worthless document that we feel justified in obsetymg that, if the report is a-fair sample of the' board’s work, the country might well save the £2,575 annually spent on the boa“d’s travelling expenses and allow* ances.