THE EMERGENCY PETROL TAX

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22515, 24 September 1938, Page 26

THE EMERGENCY PETROL TAX

* MOTORISTS’ CAMPAIGN FOR REMOVAL “AN ELECTION ISSUE” GOVERNMENT AND “THE PRESS’* CRITICISED /. A determined national effort by motorists to bring about the removal of the 4Jd a gallon emergency tax 021 petrol was inaugurated by the South , Island Motor Union at its annual meeting yesterday. In addition to pressing on the Prime Minister its claims for the removal of the tax, the union decided, in conjunction with the North Island Motor Union, to circularise every candidate at the forthcoming General Election asking for his views on the question. As the two organisations represent softie 85,000 voters, it is considered that the petrol tax issue will become an important one for the consideration of candidates. The union, having decided to prosecute this objective with all its energy, decided that it could not support the Canterbury Progress League's proposal to make representations that the whole of the net proceeds, of motor taxation be transferred to the Main Highways Account and expended for highways purposes. Strong criticism was levelled at the Government for its lack of sympathy with the motorists in their representations on the subject, and disagreement with opinions expressed in a leading article in “The Press’’ on Thursday was voiced by delegates.

Progress League’s Proposal Mr W. R. Carey explained that the executives of the North Island and South Island Motor Unions had recently made joint representations to the Minister for Finance on the removal of the emergency tax. The executive felt, therefore, that this excursion into the subject by the Canterbury Progress League could not be supported. The general conditions in New Zealand now were such that the tax could well be removed. Failing any satisfaction being obtained on this point, the unions then might take up the proposal of the Progress League. At the last conference of the union at Oamaru, said the president (Dr. S. A. Gibbs), the subject had been deferred pending a reply from the Minister for Finance. He had since replied that the Government, owing to its heavy commitments, was unable to accede to the unions’ request. The North Island Union had reaffirmed its decision to press for the removal of the tax, and had addressed a letter to the Prime Minister expressing dissatisfaction with the failure of the Minister for Finance to meet the motorists’, representations in any way. “Unless we are going to stultify our previous resolutions, it is up to us now to reaffirm our decision to press for the removal of the emergency tax,” said Dr. Gibbs; “I have seen a suggestion in the papers that we might get a penny off. Half a loaf is better than no bread, of course, and we might even get a reduction of twopence.’’ (Laughter.) “State of Emergency Past” “The tax was an emergency tax because of the difficult financial position of the country,” declared Mr A. E. Ansell. The motorists had regarded it a s an emergency measure and had not objected to it. There would, however, have been a strong protest had they known it was not to be removed when the state of emergency had passed. "We, as motorists, are being asked to pay substantial funds into the consolidated revenue, as well as the sums we pay as citizens,” he said. In the lart three years motorists had paid £ 7,227,432 into the Consolidated Fund. The sum of £4 ; 568,693 came from petrol tax and £2,658,739 in Customs revenue. Motorists did not object to their payments by way of Customs, but nevertheless they were entitled to count them in their contribution to revenue. "The. necessity for further finance to carry on the Government’s schemes is admitted, but why should motorists be saddled with so large a share of the burden as we are to-day?” Whether the expenditure now going on was justifiable was a matter, for consideration, went on Mr Ansell. He suggested that there was no attempt to- co-ordinate expenditure and revenue. “We have adopted the official attitude that highways are • a community benefit and that the community should share in the expense involved,” said Mr Ansell, after reading extracts from the leading article in “The Press.” “The article brings into question the economic right Of using a special fund for a special purpose.” The union, he said, had taken that attitude from the beginning, and he, for one, was not prepared to recede from it. “The writer of that article was obviously not au fait with the real position.” said Mr A. Grayson, in supporting Mr Ansell’s motion that the union reaffirm its decision to make joint representations with the North Island Motor Union for the removal of the tax of 4Jd a gallon. Mr W. R. Carey suggested it was an opportune time to approach Parliamentary candidates on the matter, and it was agreed' that the executives of the two unions should draw up a form of letter which the associations should send to candidates in their respective districts. “We have 85,000 members and we have a chance to show our strength—and our teeth at the same time,” commented a delegate.