PRINCIPLE OF HEAVY TRAFFIC FEES SUPPORTED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18640, 18 December 1928, Page 4

PRINCIPLE OF HEAVY TRAFFIC FEES SUPPORTED.

CITY COUNCIL WILL URGE THEIR CONTINUANCE. In October last a circular letter was received by the City Council from the Public Works Department stating that a movement, promoted, by owners of heavy vehicles, had been on foot for some time with the object of inducing the Government to discontinue the regulation under the Public W orks Act which authorises local authorities to charge heavy traffic license fees. Information was asked for as to the amount received by the council in respect of these fees, together with an indication as to the uses to which the money had been put. It was also stated in the letter that a conference in reference to the matter would be held early in the New Year. At last night’s meeting of the council the By-Laws Committee reported that a letter had been received from the Piako County Council, Te Aroha, protesting against the proposal to abolish heavy traffic license fees, as it was of opinion that the charging of these fees was a fair method of making users of the road pay, and asking that the Christchurch council, if it was of a similar opinion, should stress this view and also take steps to see that the local bodies were strongly represented at the conference proposed to be held in the New Year. The report added that for the year 1927-28 the amount of heavy traffic license fees available for distribution in the No. 16 Heavy Traffic District was £9854 7s 9d, and the sum allocated to the Christchurch Council was £4434 9s sd, • plus 5 per cent for collection, £545 2s sd, and this revenue was spent on the maintenance of streets. It would, therefore be seen that if the ‘regulations authorising the charging of these fees was abolished it would mean a serious loss to the council and the committee recommended that the suggestions of the Piako County Council be given effect to. PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION. Councillor Elizabeth M'Combs said that years ago there were interesting discussions on the subject of the principles of taxation but nowadays such matters were passed over with little discussion. She entirely disagreed with the proposals of the Piako County Council as she did not believe in a tax on industry such as was involved in the heavy traffic license fees. Even the Reform Government was not wholeheartedly in favour of the taxation of heavy traffic. She moved that the matter be referred back to the committee for further consideration. In seconding the motion Councillor F. R. Cooke said he had been thinking along the same lines as Councillor M’Combs. “It is a case of two great minds thinking alike,” he added. “Do you call yours a great mind? ” inquired the Mayor, jocularly. “ I hope so,” retorted Councillor Cooke, whereupon Councillor Carr remarked: “ There's many a true word spoken in jest.” Councillor Cooke went on to say that the tax was an unwarranted interference with transport. He considered that roads should be specially prepared for heavy traffic and that it should be confined to those roads. The Mayor: And who is to pay for the special roads? “A HIT AT INDUSTRY." Councillor Cooke contended that the cost should come out of the petrol tax. It was unfair to impose another tax on top of the petrol tax. The tax was a tax on industry. Councillor M. E. Lyons said that it was a principle of taxation that the burden should be borne by those best able to bear it, and in the matter of heavy traffic taxation the owners of heavy vehicles were the right ones to pay. Councillors Cooke and M’Combs argued that it was a tax on industry. The company tax was a tax on industry, but he had never heard any Labour member declaiming against it. Councillor Carr: I’m against the company tax. Councillor Lyons remarked that Councillor Carr was rapidly developing into a Labour left winger. Perhaps after a few more sessions he would be declaring himself an independent. Councillor E. Andrews: He’ll be joining the Reform Party. (Laughter.) It was idle. Councillor Lyons added, to pretend that it was a tax on industry. It was merely a charge for services rendered to the owners of heavy motor vehicles by the local bodies. INDUSTRY AND TAXATION. Councillor 11. T. Armstrong, M.P., said he did not regard it as a very serious matter. A large share of the fees collected by the council was allocated to other loyal bodies. It was quite true that it was a tax on industry, but what tax was not? Councillor M’Combs? A tax on land. (Ironical laughter.) Councillor Armstrong said that every tax was a tax on industry. To carry Councillor M’Combs's argument to its logical conclusion, they must abolish the heavy traffic fees, the petrol tax, and, in fact, every other tax, and put everything on to the rates. He wondered how the ratepayers would like that. The heavy traffic fees which the council received were earmarked towards paying the interest on the roading loan. Councillor P. W. Sharpe contended that there was no fairer way of taxing motor vehicles than the petrol tax. But when it was put on he considered that the heavy traffic tax should have been taken off. He was in favour of the matter being referred back to the committee. Councillor G. Manning expressed the. -opinion that every form of transport should pay for its permanent way. lie considered that the cost of the roads used by motor vehicles should be borne by the owners of those vehicles. It was not right to throw the cost back on to the ratepayers. Councillor J. W. Roberts said that the heavy vehicles were paying for the upkeep of the roads by the petrol which they used. He believed that when next the matter was reviewed in Parliament the heavy traffic fees would be taken off. Councillor E. H. Andrews said it seemed to him that the heavy traffic fees needed modification. The prese.nt tax was not altogether just. A new bus recently put on the joad by the Tramway Board had cost between £2OO and £250 in various fees before it turned a wheel. Besides, the bus did not do more than five miles to the gallon, and so the bus paid four-fifths of a penny per mile petrol tax. Councillor F. M. Robson expressed the opinion that those who used the roads should pay for them. He was in favour of the recommendation of the committee. THE MAYOR’S VIEWS. The Mayor said that, when the matter was before the committee, several members, who had spoken against the recommendation that night, had not spoken against it in committee. He could not understand their attitude. Councillor Cooke had suggested that they should have special roads for

heavy traffic, but, if they had these roads and the users had to pay for them, they would have to pay about ten times more than they paid today. Every vehicle that used the roads should pay in proportion to the damage it did to the roads. The petrei tax did not cover the extra damage done to the roads. There must be a special charge for special services, and there was just as much reason for abolishing the heavy traffic tax as any' other tax. He had humorously suggested that they might just as well abolish the tax on beer. Those who drank had to pay the tax. while those who did not drink beer did not have to pay. Councillor Armstrong: You do not know what you are missing. (Laughter.) The Mayor, continuing, said that the owners of heavy traffic should pay the fees. It would be just as reasonable to expect the Prohibitionists to pay the beer tax. Councillor M’Combs’s amendment that the report be. referred back to the committee w’as lost by eight votes to seven. The voting was as follows: —Ayes: Councillors Al’Combs, Carr, Cooke, Butterfield, Roberts, Sharpe and Andrews; noes: Councillors Armstrong, Robson, Macfarlane, Manning, Lyons, Beavcn and Beanland and the Mayor. The report was the adopted.