MOTORISTS PROTEST

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 34, 10 February 1933, Page 8

MOTORISTS PROTEST

DEPUTATION TO GOVERNMENT

"WHOLESALE AND OPPRESSIVE"

'A' protest against the increase of 3d a gallon in the petrol tax was made by a deputation Tepresexiting the automobile associations of New Zealand which waited on the Minister of Customs (the Bight Hon. J. G. Coates) yesterday. ■•'" Mr. W. G. Walkley, secretary of the North Island Motor Union,. said that the ad valorem percentage of taxation was staggering. The Gulf price of petrol to-day was 4.45 cents per Imperial gallon, which, converted at 3.38 dollars to the £1, equalled 3.15 d per gallon. The position, was, therefore:—Gulf price, 3.15 d; old tax, 8d; primage, .4d; new tax, 3d; primage, .lsd; 15 per cent, extra exchange, which is a direct tax on petrol (based on'c.i.f. cost, N.Z.), .9d; total taxation, 12.45 d. . Another matter which had not escaped motorists' notice, but which, it seems,' had been entirely overlooked by the Government, said Mr. Walkley, was that motor taxation had been increased between 1924 and 1932 by 600 pei cent., and now with a further 3d per gallon added, the increase for next year could' safely be said to be not less than 820 per cent. "We cannot think of one. argument which could even in the least degree warrant such wholesale and oppressive taxation upon one class of the community," be said. "Petrol consumption has dropped during the last two years, arid we feel that the law of diminishing returns will operate at an accelerated Tate, due to this further taxation. For example, 2d tax was put on in 1930, and the following year sales dropped by 6,000,000 gallons, as against the normal increase the previous year of 6,000)000. In 1931 still another 2d was added and .eales dropped by- a further 5,000,000 gallons. ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL. " The Government obviously has determined on the imposition of a sales tax, and we think it should be reminded that in. Australia the actual return from the sales tax exceeded the estimate by. £.2,400,000, and, therefore, it; is . reasonable to suppose that a similar result- will be attained in New Zealand,", said Mr. Walkley. "We suggest: (1) That instead of bleeding the taxpayer/white to meet next year's Government commitments in, London the Government could relieve the taxpayer, by borrowing a proportion of its requirements in London," thereby spreading the burden, of repayment and at the same .time avoiding, the present additional cost of settlement due to the 25 per. cent, rate of, exchange. • " (2) That to relieve -the unemployment -situation a ; comprehensively planned loading scheme be. put into operation, and, say, £1,000,000 of the Unemployment Board's money transferred to the Main Highways Board and used for the purpose. This would Tesnlt in work ox- permanent value being done, and in useful employment Tieing provided for a large number of men. ' "(3) ,That the possibility of reducing the national interest buTden by a conversion, scheme be examined. • "(4) That a tax on local body trading and power boards should be considered, because apart from equities such a tax would be spread equitably. The , tax would require to be on the capital invested because otherwise it could be evaded by reduction in charges for the. services. This would yield £500,000." The new tax, Mr. Walkley said, placed a heavy burden upon all commercial transport in the country. It would react against farmers, market gardeners, carriers, passenger vehicle owners and users, and all road goods and produce services, and would inevitably result in a large-, accretion to the Tanks of the unemployed. TAKING A NEW STAND. "Last year and the year before, wo accepted your financial proposals and •with great difficulty prevailed upon our members through- our organisations to do likewise," Mr. Walkley said in conclusion. "To-day, however, we cannot pursue the same policy, because advantage has been taken of onr previous helpful attitude, and the present tax is bo inequitable that our duty to our members demands that we now take: an entirely different stand. If we" failed to oppose your new taxation no argument that could be advanced would justify our action to our members, and not only are we not justified in. attempting to pacify our members and get them to accept the additional burden but that any such attempt would be hopeless. ■ "Petrol is an essential business commodity; and.it seems-to .us.incomprer

hensible that the Government should, persist with a manifestly unfair imposition, which must alienate and antagonise not only our 55,000 members, but all persons angaged in road transport in this country." The serious deterioration of the highways through lack of maintenance was stressed by Mr. A. E. Ansell, M.P., who emphasised the importance of the Highways Board's revenue being applied to maintenance, as it was poor economy to allow the deterioration to continue. MINISTER'S REPLY. _Mr. Coates said that he fully recognised the necessity of maintaining the roads in a proper state of repair and arresting any further deterioration. He realised that in placing an additional tax on motorists for the benefit of the Consolidated Fund he was inflicting a heavy burden, but it was necessary that steps should be taken to avoid a serious deficit in the national accounts. It might be, Mr. Coates said, that there were other means of adjusting tax also so that the burden would be more equitably distributed, and he would undertake an investigation as soon as possible. He fully recognised the strength of the argument" used in regard to the law of diminishing returns, and he would keep a close watch upon the consumption of petrol in the Dominion with a view to taking appropriate steps £n the event of any reaction which would adversely affect the revenue and trade of the country.