PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 11960, 15 October 1924, Page 9

PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

END OF SESSION IN SIGHT. QUICK PASSAGE OF BILLS. The Legislative Council, sat at 2.30 p.jn. yesterday. ' It was decided that the • council should insist on its amendments to section 14 of the Police Offences Amendment Bill, and the Hons. Sir Francis Bell, Sir John Sinclair and Mr V. H. Reid were appointed a committee to prepare reasons. The Hon. Sir Francis Bell notified his intention of moving to suspend tho standing orders to permit measures to be put through all stages at one sitting. The Government Railways Amendment Bill, received from, the House of Representatives, was "read a first time. The- council rose at 2.40 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. to-day.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MOTOR VEHICLES BILL THE COMMITTEE STAG®. CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION. The House of Representatives sat at 2.30 p.m. yesterday. FOUR NEW BILLS. The Education Amendment Bill, the Poultry Bill, the Railways Authorisation Bill, and the Native Trustee Amendment Bill were introduced by Governor-General’s message, and .read a first time, and in addition the Education Amendment Bill was read a second time pro forma, and referred to the Education Committee

MOTOR VEHICLES

THE BILL UNDER FIRE MEASURE MUCH CRITICISED. “HOSTS OF PROTESTS.” In committee on the Motor Vehicles Bill, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr T. M. Wilford) said that since the second reading of the biU_he, had reoeived hosts of protests against it from local authorities and others. The, bill, unfortunately, was not founded upon any principle, but merely upon expediency. Revenue was wanted for the Highways Board, which, unlike a Glaxo baby, could not stand’ on its own feet, and the Minister expected from it a revenue of :010O,<X)0 a year. He compiftined that the man who paid in Wellington his 30s a year tax for the Hutt, road had to pay also the fees under this bill. If the tax were based on tyres or petrol it. would have behind it the principle of payment in proportion to the use of the roads; but as it stood, it was going to work great injustice to many local authorities. He would show the Minister hew he could get a revenue of £40,000 without this bill at all. Every motor-car that came into the country to-day carried four fyrea and a spare. The number of motors that came in last year was 20,000, so that 100,000 tyres came in, and paid no tyre tax at all. The Hon. J. G. Coates (Minister for Public Works) : Nonsensel Mr Wilford said that it was not nonsense. Two of the highest dealers in motor-cars in town had made that statement to him at a meeting he attended last week, and the Minister would find that there was no tax on those 100,000 tyres. “WHERE £40,000 COULD BE RAISED.” ; If a tax of 8s per tyre were impos ed, that would mean £2 per car; :'fc would not be felt in the cost of the car and would bring in £40,000 a year. In his recent address to the Farmers’ Union, the Minister 6oid that the only fair tax for getting revenue for the purposes of the Highways Act was one based on the use of the roads. But the Government had turned that down, and proposed to impose instead this inX table flat rate license on cars — ther a light, private car used only at week-ends for the most part, or t heavy taxi or motor-lorry using and cutting up the roads practically every day in the week. He, Mr Wilford, thought that a petrol or tyre tax would be the fairest. What funds, he asked, had the Highways Board already in hand through tyre tax. The Minister: £260,000 was raised l by tho tyre tax in • the past two years. Mr Wilford added that, personally, he had not a great dleal of faith that the Highways Act was going to be the success that some people hoped it would bo. There were so many miles and miles of road running parallel to the railways which were going to he improved! to enable motor vehicles to- compete more easily with the railways, anil there would be so much difference of opinion, too, as to what were or were not highways “GAOLING MOTOR HOGS.” ,

The hill was a useful measure so far • as the regulation and control of motor traffic, etc., and gaoling of “motor hogs” was concerned, and nobody would - object to that, but the revenue clauses should be reconsidered. The Eton. J. G. Coates maintained that every tyre that came in on a 1 motor vehicle paid 5s in tyre tax, but not Customs duty. Mr Wilford: I think the Minister will find that is incorrect. Mr Coates: I am certain of the charge. If it is not the tyro tax, it is a Customs tax. The-v don’t come ii free. , BENEFITS OF THE HIGHWAYS BOARD. It was not correct, he stated, that tho whole cost of the Highways Board would be charged against the Consolidated Fund. The cost of construction of the main roads would be; but I •’he board would bear only one-third'

MOTOR VEHICLES BLL BEFORE HOUSE OPINIONS DIFFER ON TAXATION QUESTION FEW CHANGES IN COMMITTEE tylost of yesterday in the House of Representatives was devoted to a discussion of the Motor Vehicles Bill. The measure was in its committee stage, but many hours’ discussion produced few • changes. During the" day the Prime Minister made a statement indicating that he expected the session to end this month.

of tho cost of maintenance. That £260,000 in the Highways Board Account was in addition to what the local bodies had ever had for the ro.ads before, so it must surely be of some benefit. Another benefit would be that the Highways Board would lay down a standard that would bo uniform when a road passed through several local body areas. Where, too, the local bodies previously paid the whole cost of maintenance, now they would pay only two-thirds; while the Highways Board would pay the whole cost of those that were declared Govermnent roads. He, personally, did not think that the tax principle in the bill was the best. He agreed that the tax should he based on the use of the roads; but he urged that the best thing to do under the existing circumstances was to carry the bill as it stood and reconsider the matter during the recess. WHY NOT A BETTERMENT TAX? Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon), contended that the fees payable under the bill had no relation to service. The man with a huge motor omnibus running every day would pay £5 a year only, while a man with a private motor-car, who used a small trailer for week-end trips, would aiso have to pay £5. The expenditure of large sums of money to bring the highways up-to-date must increase to somo extent the value of the land in the vicinity; and it should be possible to collect some portion of that increment by a betterment tax or otherwise, to place this matter on * proper scientific basis. The bill would have to be repealed next session, because there was not a. vestige of fairness about the method of collecting the revenue. “WOULD BE A HOWL.”

The Hon. D. Buddo (Kadapoi), declared that ho would vote against the most inequitable taxation proposed in the bill; and there would be a howl throughout the country against it. Mr W\ D. Lysnar (Gisborne), agreed that tho schedule of the bill was not on an equitable basis of taxation; but ho also agreed with the Minister that it would bo better to pass the bill and amend it next year. He would, therefore, vote for the bill. “NO REASON FOR TAX.” Mr W. A. Veitch (Wanganui), said that the Customs taxes on motor vehicles and accessories brought in £306,000 last year; and the Customs revenue had been and 1 was still rising rapidly in all directions. . In view of the fact that the Government would also get £30,000 profit from, its transaction with the Bank of New Zealand, he saw no reason why taxation should tie increased at all. The increased Cuttoms revenue from motor-cars and accessories should he earmarked for the Highways Board Fund. This highways question had been before the

country a good many years; and, sure- [ ly, the Government should have made up its mind on some scientific system of taxation for the purposes of the . board. It was unfair that the man i with a cheap Ford should be called • upon to pay the same tax as a man with a £2OOO Rolls-Royce. It should i also be taken into account that a ran. . tor-oar was a luxury only to a small number of owners; to many it was necessary for business purposes; and to some it wasl their, main means of livelihood. The most unfair tax of all was the proposed tax on trailers—on a trailer with three or more wheels £3 a year, and on other trailers £l. Many small builders and paintefs used a trailer about once _ a week to take material out to their jobs; and in such cases 6s a year was quite enough to charge. PRIME MINISTER SPEAKS “A SPECIALLY DIFFTOUI/T MATTER.” The Prime Minister did not think that any hon. member would say that any form of taxation was perfect, and taxation i was a specially difficult matter in regard to motor-cars, which differed so much in value, in speed, in weight, m horse-power, in the loads they carried, and in the damage they cid to the road's- 1 They had to choose between <a tax on the Vehicle itself, and a tax on petrol. Mr Wilford: Did. you mention tyres? The Prime Minister said that they had gbt a tyre tax now, and if they could get all the revenue required by means of the tyre tax. it would not be necessary to go further. But that could not he done. If they levied the tax on petrol, they would’ have great difficulty in discriminating between the petrol used for motor vehicles and for motor-launches, milking machines, etc. The tax imposed in the bill was a mere trifle as compared l with the taxes imposed upon motor-cars, lorries, etc., in England l . From £2O to £25 was quite customary, and in some cases it went up to £32 a year. But nobody seemed to grumble; everybody seemed to ibe satisfied, because the money was used for road making purposes. “ROADS MUST BE BROUGHT UP-TO-DATE.” New Zealand could not do without better roads. The roads in the Dominion had been no credit to us for a long time past. We might make it easier for motors to oompete with the railways, but. whether or not, the roads must be brought up-to-date, and we had got to find the money the best way we could. He had just got an official statement to the effect that ' each of the tyres forming part of an imported motor-vehicle paid a tax to the account of the Highways Board —■ 1 10 per cent, in the case of British ; tyres, and 26 per cent, in the case of foreign tyres. . ‘ Mr Wilford said that when he im- * ported his own car, there was no tax < on the tyres. Mr J. S. Dickson (Parnell) remarked J that it was included in the tax on 1 the car. . J The Prime Minister said that the 1 statement he had auoted was an official t statement from the Customs Depart- 1 ment, and he must accept it as cor- v rec-t. “MUST SLOW DOWN.” \ Perhaps they could do without the a tax at all in a good year, and he t

would like to think that this year was going to be a good year. Last year was a fairly good one, and the large increase in the revenue from motorcars last yeaf was owing to the greater prosperity of the country towards the end of the year. He did not think that we could, go or. increasing the importation of motor-cars as we had done in the last few years. He thought that we would have to slow down, except in regard to vehicles that were not mere luxuries, mere pleasure cars. LAND TAX SUGGESTED. Mr M. J. Savage (Auckland West) uiged that good roads increased tho value of land, and made country life more congenial, and, surely, they had' onlv to sit down and think for a little while to realise where the tax for highways board revenue ought to he put. But we were living in an age of unscientific methods in taxation and everything else. He wanted the hill in its present form, if the House could not improve upon it, but he was willing to help other members 'to lay the foundation of the bill on the proper lines. BILL CALLED “UNSCIENTIFIC AND REACTIONARY.” Mr J. A. Macpherson (Oamaru) described the bill as most unscientific. Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said that the taxation proposals of the bill were such that one would he justified in opposing the bill while expressing himself as in favour of better roads. He had thought we had got past the days of a tax on enterprise to provide a minor assistance. The proposals of the hill were just about as reactionary as had been made in the last ten years. The Hon. A. D. McLeod said there had long been difficulties and the bill was only an attempt to lay down some common basis that would be valuable for the roads of the country. Mr J. MoO Diokson (Chalmers) objected strongly to the flat rate on private cars. Mr J. A. Nash (Palmerston North) thought the Minister was to be congratul&ted on introducing the bill. Mr Nash held that a hoy fifteenyears of age was -too young to drive a motor-car in dense traffic, say, in Molesworth street. He thought that the age limit for licensed drivers shorn.•. he sixteen years. He favoured tollgates at certain points, such as tho Manaiwatu Gorge. At 7.35 p.m, the Prime Minister said that the House had already been discussing the short title for hours. He suggested that the short title should be passed, and the other -points dealt with oh the clauses referring to therm. Most of the objections related to the schedule, and when they came to that the Minister-in-Charge would have a suggestion to make that might meet with the nnreroval of the House. Mr J. Edie (Clutha) declared' that the bill needed a good deal of amendment. The flat tax proposed was most unfair. He feared that tho Highway Act would result iu many of the county councils having to levy higher rates. WOULD RELIEVE LOCAL BODIES. The Hon. J. G. Coates said that it would relieve the local bodies of the construction and maintenance of Go-

t vernrncnt roads and- of part of the £ maintenance of other roads; and would fc thus assist thoir finance rather than 1 otherwise. They would have to spend . less in the directions indicated, and the counties would thus have more to spend on their interior roads. Mr T. W. .Rhodes (Thames) objected 1 that the driver’s license-fee the local - bodies would vet under the hill would - he only ss, and out of that they would 3 have to pay Is 6d towards the cost of 7 administration of the measure. Thus t they would only get a net 3s Cd.. He t urged that the fee should! be made 10s. l Even then the local bodies would have' i little enough to meet the half oost of - constructing the roads and the two- - thirds cost of maintenance. Again, - fifteen was an absurdly low age at 3 which to issue drivers’ licenses to either • girls or boys. He thought it ought to 3 be 17 or 18. The compensation—up to - £SO only—for persons killed or injured - was quite absurd’. It would he better 5 to leave people to their common law * remedy. i 1 “HIGHWAYMAN’S METHOD.” | Mr Wilfcrd maintained that the tax on tyres on imported motor-cars j went into the Consolidated Fund, instead of into the Highways Fund: j whereas the tax he (Mr Milford) had suggested would have put another [ £40,000 a year into the Highways , Fund, even though it might be eome--5 what of a highwayman’s method of getting the revenue. (Laughter.) He [ invited the “taciturn and silent Min- , ister in charge of the Bill” (the Hon. , R. F. Bollard) to tell the House now, , instead of waiting till it reaohed the schedule, the proposal he had to make. The Prime Minister stated that the tax on tyres attached to imported motor vehicles went into the Highways Fund. Mr Wilford demurred to this. 1 “OUT THE CACKLE.” Mr H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labour Party) thought that all that could be said for and against the bill had already been said; and urged that the House should pass the short title, get on to the bill, and make the necessary amendments’ Mr R. Masters (Stratford) protested against the system which dealt so unfairly with the small boroughs of New Zealand. The Hon. W. Nosworthy (Minister Ccfr Agriculture) urged that the schedule ought to be altered so as to be more equitable in the case of wheatgrowers and other farmers similarly situated, who had to move heavy , weights of wheat, etc., at certain periods of the year. Mr G. R. Sykes (Masterton) preferred a petrol tax. The rebate in the case of the petrol used for a milkingmachine would he so trivial, he held!, that the farmers would not trouble to apply for it. They would not mind paying the tax. , The Hon. R. F. Bollard said! he was of opinion that the £5 tax oh heavy motor vehicles was quite reasonable. They did a great deal of damage to the roads. The matter had been discussed for years past, and he thought the flat tax system was the fairest. Farmers used their motor-cars for traction purposes as well as for conveyances. He had seen men chainharrowing paddockß and doing other similar work with their motor-cars. Mr Macpherson: Is that why you are taxing them, heavily? (Laughter.) Mr R. A. Wright (Wellington Sub- , uibsl contended that the local bodies | would gain, not lose, hv the bill.They would lose the registration, fee, j which applied only to new cars, hut they would gain the driver’s license fee. whidh came every year, and the j 1« 6d for administration would not come off that 5s fee. He believed the number of car 3 would greatly increase because of the better roads. Mr O. Hawken (Egmont) said that good roads had enormously increased ’ the numbers of cars in southern Tara- 1 ntki, and they would contribute large- 1 lv to the fund. He was in favour of f the hill because the objectors had no better scheme. The dairy fanners t would object to a petrol tax. ? Mr J. R. Corrigan (Patea) thought » there was nothing fairer than a petrol tax, and if a petrol tax or a tyre tax t was not included, ho would Oppose , •' the measure 1

MOTORISTS v. DAIRY FARMERS. Mr Veitch declared that what was wanted in New Zealand to-day was “production, more production, still more production” roads to open up the baokblocks and give access to farms, not perfect motor-car roads between the main centres of population. But the automobile clubs had evidently more influence with the Government than the dairy farmers’ associations. AGE FOR LICENSING. Clause 14, providing a penalty of £2O for each day on which a motor vehicle is used when not paying a proper fee, was amended to make a general maximum penalty of £SO. Mr J. A. Nash (Palmerston North) moved with the object of raising the age at which drivers may he licensed from 15 years to 16 years. The Hon. J. G. Coates said that he did not think the amendment was necessary. In California a boy might be licensed at 14 years, be a

chauffeur at 16 years, and a taxidriver at 18 years. AGE OF DRIVERS. The age of »15 years was agreed to. On clause 21, which provides that local authorities may issue motor drivers’ licenses on payment of a fee of os, it was moved that the fee should! be 10s. The clause was passed with the 5s remaining. Mr Wilford. objected to the proposal that regulations might be made restricting or prohibiting the use of motor vehicles that, owing to defects ol construction, or for any cause, are unsuitable for safe use. He objected to the inclusion of the words “or for any other cause.’’ They, he argued, would have the effect of preventing the use of left-hand cars. Ministers said the provision would not have the effect Mr Wilford feared. The words Mr Wilford had taken exception to were deleted, and the word “oisrepatr” was inserted. Progress was reported without the schedules being considered, and .at 1.30 a.m. the House rose till 2.30 p.m. to-day.