MOTOR LICENSE FEES

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 54, Issue 3892, 21 April 1937, Page 7

MOTOR LICENSE FEES

CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS. IS THERE A “CATCH" IN THEM? Action taken by the Government in exempting, as from April Ist, certain motor vehicles from the annual license fees under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924, was notified to the Waipa County Council at its meeting on Monday last. One of the exemptions read, “Any motor vehicle or trailer designed and used exclusively or prin cipally for use in agricultural operations, inclusive of huts, galleys and similar vehicles used in connection with such operations." Cr L. F. Onion thought they should ask the Minister for an elaboration of the term “agricultural operations." For instance, he desired to cart certain farm produce into Frankton, or another farmer might desire to take his own cream to a factory. Did these acts come within the meaning of “agricultural operations.’’ If not, it seemed to him that the heavy traffic license fees should be re-arranged on a more equitable, or differential basis, according to the use to which the vehicle was put. Cr E. F. Peacock said it was not reasonable that a farmer should pay the same heavy traffic license fee as a man who was on the road all the time. The present system was absolutely inequitable. Farmers’ lorries should be graded according to use. Cr Onion said this could be done by

taking into account the mileage run. The chairman (Cr S. C. Macky) said the matter had been discussed by the Counties’ Conference, but the suggestion had been thrown out, as heavy vehicles were regarded as a source of potential damage to the roads.

Cr J. T. Johnson said that the farmer paid both ways. If he did his own carting, he still pays rates. If he got a carrier to do it for him, the carrier passed the charges on to the farmer. Cr D. B. Livingstone hel l it was the duty of the Council to nelp to protect the farmer who was being “bled” by the carriers, and who was expected to pay out of all proportion

Cr Onion said that they could not blame the carrier for passing on his increased costs, but it bit the farmer every time. The latter was really between two fires, as if he put on his

own truck he was up against the heavy license fees. It seemed to him that there might be a “calch” in the official notice, just as ha-1 happened that day with regard to the payment

of rates on Crown lands. He therefore moved that a letter be sent both to the

Minister of Transport and Minister of Agriculture, stressing the necessity for the placing of heavy traffic licensing fees on a more equitable basis for farmers running their own heavy motor vehicles. Cr Peacock, in seconding, said that

every cost to the farmer was going up; in some cases the cost of carting had been increased by 100 per cent. The motion was carried unanimously.