Is TAX ON BOAT AND AIR PASSENGERS SUGGESTED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 10 June 1939, Page 8

Is TAX ON BOAT AND AIR PASSENGERS SUGGESTED

REMIT DEFEATED AT FARMERS’ CONFERENCE HARBOUR BOARD REVENUE A suggestion that the Nelson Harbour Board collect a fee from all boat and aeroplane passengers and also increase wharfage charges so that the Harbour rate could be abolished, was made in a remit submitted to the annual conference of the Nelson Farmers’ Union. However the remit was defeated on being put to the vote.

Mr H. Schroder, who moved the adoption of the remit on behalf of the Richmond branch of the Union said the Harbour Board no doubt needed the 1 revenue collected from the rate, but he ! considered the rate could be abolished and the revenue brought to its present total if the board made a levy of Is on each boat passenger using the wharf and on each air passenger using the aerodrome, in addition to a small increase in wharfage charges. He estimated that there were from 40,000 to 50,000 boat passengers in and out of Nelson each year and 10,000 to 11.000 air passengers. The Nelson Harbour Board was in a good position to collect such a fee as it was also the airport authority. Everyone using the facilities would then share in providing the board with revenue instead of rates being charged against property owners only. The motion was seconded by Mr McMurtry. Mr J. S. Bailey, of Murchison, said he represented a district not represented on the Harbour Board. However, he opposed the remit as he considered the effect of raising wharfages would affect the trade of the port and would result in even more of the produce of his district being sent out through Christchurch and Picton. Murchison butter at one time went through Nelson but it was now sent to Lyttelton, and increased charges would result in more wool and other commodities being sent out via Picton or Christchurch, which would also have an effect on the Nelson railway.

Mr E. S. Wratt suggested that if the remit was applied to the Motueka Harbour Board it would be against the interests of that port which had no passenger trade. In an case he was opposed to a poll tax being placed on people coming and going from Nelson. Mr A. E. Max (a member of the Harbour Board) said he was opposed to the remit. The Harbour Board was considering a means of obtaining greater revenue from the aerodrome. The wharfage charges had already been increased to meet growing costs and he agreed that still higher wharfages would result in the board losing some of its business. In answer to a question the chairman (Mr R. C. T. Raine) slated that a harbour rate of 3 l-7d in the £ was paid in the city. In reply Mr Schroder said that a fee of Is from passengers and a small increase of from Id to 3d per ton on wharf charges would do away with the necessity for the rate, give the farmers of the district taxation relief, and result in all those using the wharf paying for its upkeep. The motion was defeated on the voices.