PETROL TAX OPPOSED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17245, 11 January 1924, Page 10

PETROL TAX OPPOSED.

MOTORISTS RAISE OBJECTIONS. The council of the Canterbury Auto- . mobile Association lest night protested 1 against the Hon J. G. Coates’s recent proposal that a petrol tax should be imposed. Several members of the council were very emphatic in their protests. They accused the Minister of attempting to break faith with motorists, saying that when he met their representatives in Wellington a short time ago, he said that a tyre tax would be sufficient-. Surprise was expressed at the announcement in the newspapers that the Minister now j:>roposed a petrol tax. The first suggestion of the new tax, apparently, was made by the Minister at a meeting at Kaeo, in the Auckland Province. He was discussing the Motor Vehicles Bill, whose main object, he explained, was to provide for the maintenance of roads under the Highways Act. He said that the principle in the Bill was that the users of roads should pay for the maintenance of the roads. “ The Bill will provide for a flat tax per vehicle,” he continued. “ but that is not the best application of the principle. If possible, the users should be made to pay through a petrol tax, which is the fairest way.” He added that he thought that ways should be i'oupd for exempting petrol used in launches and machinery, especially farming machinery. The protest by Canterbury motorists last night was led by Mr W. li. Nicholson, Mayor of Sumner, who moved that the council should protest to the Minister and should ask the South Island I- 4 *fV>r Union to do the same. -• X. M. Orbell seconded the rnoMr R. Macartney, the only member of the council who supported the petrol tax. spoke mainly as a member of local bodies that maintain roads in Canterbury. He referred to the great expense of maintenance, and said: If you don’t have a petrol tax, you will have a flat tax on your cars. The upkeep of roads between here and Akaroa is costing the local bodies thousands of pounds. lam in favour of the Minister's new proposal, which, I think, is a good idea. Mr F. W. Johnston: I strongly object to the Minister breaking faith with the motorists. He agreed at a conference in Wellington that there should be a single tax, a tax on tyres. It is not a proper thing for a statesman to bre*ak faith. If tiie Minister had come to the motorists and said that he wished to break away from the arrangement, or that the tax raised by it would not be sufficient, it would be alright: but it is not right for these politicians to come to an arrangement as between man and man, even if it is onlv a verbal arrangement and then break away and make a fresh proposal without consulting the people concerned. I strongly .object to the Minister blurting out his new proposals at a gathering of people who are not motorists. Until he comes to the motorists in the proper way we should resist the propsed tax tooth and nail. Mr R. W. Lochhead said that he objected to a petrol tax, which would lead to traffic in petrol and would be particularly undesirable if applied to petrol used for farming machinery. Mr H. G. Livingstone said that he thought that an agreement had been reached with the Minister in Wellington for a tyre tax on motors. A petrol tax would leave the door open to all kinds of tricks and “ schlinters." It was well known that advantage was taken of the taxation authorities at every turn, and the petrol tax would increase the temptations and opportunities. Apart from that, a flat tax on tyres was the fairest tax. The motion was carried. The Otago Motor Union on Wednesday stated that it regarded the proposal with apprehension, and it expressed a hope that a petrol tax would be fought by motorists “to the last ditch.”