TAXATION FOR ROADS.

Waikato Times, Volume 102, Issue 17222, 4 October 1927, Page 9

TAXATION FOR ROADS.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—lt is hopeful to sec that this important question is engaging the attention of people in high positions throughout the country, and I feel quite convinced that the more it is thought of and publicly discussed the more fully shall wc realise and appreciate how utterly hopeless and unfair the present system of providing the necessary money for laying down and maintaining our roads by a rate upon the land is. Your very able leading article in the Times of Hie 28th inst. on the question of Government and motors, commenting as it does upon the annual report of the Minister of Railways, puts the whole matter quite clearly and forcibly before your readers. The report in question makes it quite clear that the Government lias definitely decided to adopt the policy of transport control as a means of eliminating motor competition with our railways, and further, that it is the intention of the Minister to enter into the motor transport business in all its branches. It is very hard indeed to believe that any responsible person could seriously suggest such a cumbersome and unfair way of settling the question of competition with the railways, when it can he so simply settled by making the user of the roads pay. Considering that our railways are State owned and the country sparsely populated, it seems to' me that the idea of “transport control" has nothing to recommend it and will prove to he a pernicious and far-reaching policy which will need careful watching by the taxpayer of this country, Unless I am much mistaken, “transport control" will mean reverting to the unsatisfactory state of affairs that existed in the Railway Department some years ago, when the travelling public and those who used the railways for the transport of merchandise could hardly get civility from the servants of the State; it was a take or leave it style. Wasteful and all as the present motor competition is, there is no doubt hut that it has been the means of bringing better business methods into the Railway Department. Competition is necessary in business of all kinds, in-

eluding the running of a railway system, but it is our duty to see that ii is not wasteful as at present. You, sir, very rightly say that with the motor and railways alike paying their way is the obvious means of preventing waste. One does not know nowadays just who is responsible for framing the Government policy on any particular matter, hut I suggest that it would he a good idea for the master mind that is responsible for the policy of “Transport Control” to have a quiet interview with some of those who have invested money in motor transport companies which have been operating during the last year or two. I feel sure there would he some very useful information forthcoming of what not to do. I notice that the Minister of Railways is quite careful not to mention whether he proposes first of all to lay down good roads to run his fleet of State-owned trucks, buses and cars on, or whether he is taking it for granted that the ratepayer will continue to foot the bill for roads. If the Minister for Railways as Prime Minister of this country, will give local bodies the power to collect (by way of license on all motor vehicles and a local tax on petrol) an equitable share of the cost of making and maintaining our streets and roads the whole question of unfair and wasteful competition will be definitely settled, and 1 venture to suggest that the direct tax on the motor vehicle will also help very considerably to solve the unemployment problem by deterring those from buying cars who cannot afford them. The question of motor transport and competition must be reduced to reasonably sound limits, and when that is done there will be no need to worry about non-paying railways.—l am, etc., F. A. SNELL. Glaudclands, Oct. 3, 1927.