TAXI OWNERS COMPLAIN

Southland Times, Issue 19823, 20 March 1926, Page 5

TAXI OWNERS COMPLAIN

HEAVY TRAFFIC CHARGES. THE LIMIT OF TWO TONS. PLEA MADE FOR EXEMPTION. A complaint of injustice in the incidence of the heavy traffic regulations as they affect taxi owners with cars which weigh more than two tons when loaded to their licensed seating capacity was made to the Prime Minister recently, says the New Zealand Herald, by a deputation representing the taxi owners of New Zealand. The deputation was introduced by Mr R. McKeen, M.P. for Wellington South, who said the representations were the outcome of a conference of taxi owners from all over New Zealand which took place in Wellington the previous day. There were 1500 taxis in the Dominion and only 300 came under the provision to which objection was raised. Mr Coates: The object of the regulations is to get the weights down and increase the wearing capacity of roads. INCREASED FARES FORBIDDEN Mr G. G. Goodman, representing the Auckland Taxi Owners’ Association, said the Auckland City Council declined to make any concession by allowing increases in fares which had remained the same for the past ten or twelve years. The men were thus unable to pass the extra charge on and it came out of their pockets. The line of demarcation between cars which had to pay the extra heavy-weight tax and those which did not was so fine that it hit rather hard upon the man who was just over the two-ton limit. Hundreds of taxi owners who had seven-seater cars were “dodging” the tax because their cars were below the minimum. “You have to draw a line somewhere,” observed the Prime Minister. “I know that,” replied Mr Goodman, “but I want to point out the anomaly as between two seven-seater cars, one above the weight and the other below. Both are doing the same work, and the difference in tax is £lO 10s.” The private owner, moreover, could have a heavy car, pick the best roads and pay nothing extra. That was hardly a fair basis of taxation. The Prime Minister remarked that the private owner did not charge a fare. The private owner, pursued Mr Goodman, had a privilege under the regulations which the taxi-owner did not have. The taxi companies were taking good care to buy cars which “dodged” the regulations. They were using the road 24 hours per day, working two shifts per car, and the owner-driver with a heavier car working only half the same time per day had to pay £lO 10s more. About 300 cars in the Dominion were affected by the extra tax and many of the owners had bought their cars before the new regulations were formed. WAITING FOR WORK. “To own a taxi in Auckland to-day,” he said, “means a liability of about £2O in taxation and that is a very big item to a man when the business is not there to be done. Men are sitting in the road waiting for work; they are not using the roads.” The deputation suggested an amendment to clause 4 of the regulations by exempting the taxi-owners. Mr F. L. Fitzgerald, representing private taxi companies, said the amount now levied on the 300 men referred to was about £3OOO, a nominal sum which could be paid by increasing the general flat rate. If an increase of Is were made the present revenue of £3OOO would be more than doubled Mr Coates: It is not revenue we are after, it is only a matter of road construction and maintenance. Mr Fitzgerald said that, as an alternative to exemption from the clause, they asked for an increase in the tax on all taxis, excluding service cars, in making the flat rate irrespective of weight. The Prime Minister said he would investigate the matter and see as quickly as possible what he could do. He quite realised the position of the man who came within the scope of the regulation and had his car or cars before the regulations were framed. He stated that the Government was not concerned with the amount of revenue derived from the tax. “We don’t get a penny piece out of it.” he observed. “The local bodies are the people who benefit.”