MOTOR TAXATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22713, 28 October 1935, Page 13

MOTOR TAXATION

CO-ORDINATION BOARD’S REPORT “UTTERLY WORTHLESS * DOCUMENT” CRITICISM BY MOTOR UNIONS The following official comments are made by the North and South Island Motor Unions on the report on motor taxation issued by the Transport Coordination Board; — The report of the Transport Co-ordina-tion Board, which 12 months ago conducted an inquiry into motor taxation, has at last been made public. Any value which might have attached to the report is discounted by delay in publication, by. the manner in which 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 fhe inquiry was being held in public. Indeed, in its report the board states: “The inquiry was held in public.” During the course of the proceedings opportunity was given interested parties to test evidence by cross-examina-tion. It now appears from the report 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, who naturally would tender evidence justifying the views of their own departments. The Co-ordination Board quotes evidence verbatim tendered by the Christchurch Tramways Board, and then proceeds to report: “We take no responsibility for the grammar of this passage.” This 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 evidence whatever in support of his claim.” This statement is most unfair to counsel, who stated to the board that he had checked the calculations submitted by the motor unions on the point and found them satisfactory. Surely even the Transport Coordination 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 whatever. In one respect at least the “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 overtaxed 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 tons should be exempt from the payment of heavy traffic fees, and that local authorities be compensated for the loss of revenue by a subsidy of £1 for every £3 received by them in respect of heavy traffic fees. The board knows, dr should know, that heavy traffic fees have not been collected in certain districts on farmers’ trucks, and if its unqualified recommendation 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. This imports quite a new principle into taxation, if it is intended seriously. In the course of evidence tendered for the motor unions it was stated that, as in many cases the duty on cars of American origin equalled the wholesale cost of the vehicle in the United States, it would appear that American Care 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 wag 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 vehicles 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 the principle of a substantial preference for Empire goods.” The evidence submitted by the motor unions was a fair state ment, and such an unjustified imputation of lack of patriotism against the automobile associations, directed as they are 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 Government-appointed commissions and of this one in particular. While admitting that the policy of ear-marking taxation for special purposes is outside the scope of the inquiry, 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 Highways Board therefrom. If this was given effect to it would mean that our reading finance would drift back to the bad old days of political control. Authorities the world over are known to disagree with the Transport Co-ordination Board on this point, but the board is obviously so far out of its depth_ that no one is likely to take serious notice of its views. 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 observing that if the report is a fair sample of the board’s work, the country might well save the £?- r -75 annually spent on the board’s travelling expenses and allowances.