LIABILITY FOR ROADS.

Shannon News, 6 September 1929, Page 4

LIABILITY FOR ROADS.

__—, VIEWPOINT OF ORGANISED OAR OWNERS PRESENTED. OPPOSITION TO LOWERING HEAVY TRAFFIC FEES. "I come over that jwcjAdeirful road from Wellington to Levin this morning," said Mr 11. G. Walkley, of Hawera, in an address on "Some; Aspects of ■ .-Vhta Present Motor Taxation," which he delivered at the monthly gathering of the Levin Chamber of Commerce ; Lunch Club, held in Williams's Tea-rooms yesterday. "Only five years ago it was a nightmare to ' travel from the one place to the other; now it is a pleasure.'' The speaker exp|lainejd that a gre)it deal of damage had formerly been done to the road by heavy vehicles; and much of his address had to do with the relation of this class of traffic to the problems of road construction and maintenance.

The gathering was attended by about twenty businqss men and motorists, and was presided over by Mr E. S. Crisp (president of the Chambvr), who, in introducing the speaker for the occasion, sstated' that he was a nephew of their secretary (Mr F. P. Walkley) and was Well known in Hawcra, where he was in practice as an aceountnt. It was not -.very often, said Mr Walkley, that motorists found that Chain- • be'rs of Commerce, were interested, as official bodies, in motor taxation. At the moment it was a little difficult to separate motor taxation from politics; the Motor .Unions, and he as their representative, had no interest in politics except' insofar as motorists'interests were; concerned. Their' representative on the Highways Board, and those who represented them on' the Transport Board had become possessed tof some information' that had made •them uneasy, particularly as relating to heavy traffic fees. The North Island Motor Union had appointed him .to go into the matter with these Representatives and , state the position to ■members of Parliament, also to state •,the ease in a booklet. which he was -entrusted, to prepare on behalf of the car owners. The South Island Motor Union had joined up with that of the North Island in this movement. Together these bodies controlled 45,000 motor-car owners. . '' VALIDITY OF ARRANGEMENT WITH AUTHORITIES, One question'at issue. Mr Walkley explained, was with reference to the Government's annual grant of £235,000 to the Highways Board. . North Island motorists, as' officially organised, did not object to the taxation they were at present paying, but considered it reasonable. In 1922 the Highways Act was passed, and the motor organisations and the bounty Councils made-a bargain with the Government. In the past /.he Government had paid £235,000 per annum to the Public Works Fund, towards the cost of building and maintaining roads, and it was felt that, if motorists taxed themselves to provide 'revenue, they would not be relieving the general body of. ratepayers, and that therefore the Government grant should be continued. This was agreed to by the late Government, and up to the present year that agreement had been honoured. It was not an agreement with a body representing any particular section of the community, but with the Government of New Zealand, and the parties to it on this side expected it to be carried out, just as a ji.ition which made a contract with the British Crown would expect it to be honoured. Motorists looked to the ■present Administration to honour the contract entered into by the previous Government., The £235;t»00. was merely a minimum and no more had been ask: ' ed for. Last year the. Highways Board 'had had to find money for unemployment relief. Oyer-two and a-half millions sterling came from the motor and petrol taxation. , If that money was to be used for unemployment relief, then motorists were, in effect,, being taxed twice. They had not objected, but they did think that this was a matter of 3 which the present Government had lost sight. When the Board was constituted, a five-year constructional'programme was laid down. The work had advanced a certain distance, and it was designed .to absorb the whole of the money payable to the Board in five years, including the £235,000 per annum. If this was no longer available, the ' Board must curtail its subsidies to* local bodies for thereon-. ' st ruction of roads. Motor taxatioif had

"been provided for,the definite purpose ~■' of construction of roads, and for no other paypose. About a month ago the motor representatives met the Prime Minister and asked him for a definite assurance that the whole of the money collected from the motor owners should be spent for the purpose for which it was originally intended —namely, road "construction—'and tliat there should not be repeated in this country what , Mr Winston Churchill had done at .Home, in raiding the road fund. The . deputation Avas refused an assurance ' that motor tax would be spent on the roads. This Was important, because moilrists were taxed to provide a sum ofi'mdn'ey for a definite object. If the State could, at its will, apply the money to an. altogether different purpose, it was striking at the whole root of the Constitution and destroying the faith of the people in a State guarantee.

SIGNIFICANCE OF HEAVY TRAFFIC.

Another question was that of heavy traffic fees, in which, said Mr Walkley, he wa3 particularly interested, because while the question of the non-applica-tion of the motor tax to other than road purposes had become a political issiu, the question of heavy traffic fees was

not yet a political issue. The motor--1 ists did not want to make it a political issue. Under the Highways Act it was laid down that, by regulation, heavy traffic fees could be charged and could

be collected by local authorities from lorry and bus owners. The idea of this was to limit the weight of vehicle's. Before the Act came into force, 10-tom lorries were commonly to be mat on the roads in this district, and they were tearing .those roads to pieces. Now, under the regulations, the fees ranged up to £75, in the case of a 10ton lorry, and ultimately this class of veiucle would be right off the road. The smaller trucks, on the other hand, had increased in number. In the con-

structing of highways, a road had' to be built that was capable of carrying tJie heaviest load that ivas likely to go over it. People owning 8-ton and i 30-ton'vehicles should pay a reasonable proportion of the cost and maintenance of a road built to take those vehicles. At the end of March last year, a booklet entitled "Excessive Motor Taxation" was published by the Master Carrier's' anjd 'Customs Agents' Federation. The object of it was to Convince the members cf Parliament, in particular, that the motor-lorry owner was an over-taxed person. It might be asked why the car-owner .should take any stand in regard to this. Their attitude, however, was that they were paying a fair lax and considered that the lorry-owners should also pay their, fair proportion. There was about £250,000 annually paid in heavy traffic fees by lorry-owners to the local authori- ; ties. If that money were no longer ' available to the local authorities, it was perfectly clear that the latte. ,'bodi'es would have to collect more rates, because they could not reduce their expenditure; traffic was growing so rapidly that it would be unreasonable to expect this. If the £250,000 were no longer available, somebody else jvould have to be .taxed; and what was more simple than to inc.ease the petrol | lax? Motorists were paying 4d a galion taxation on petrol now, and their attitude was that they were not going to pay aW more. THE FARMERS' BURDEN.

-. Mr Walkley went oh to criticise the booklet, and referred to the contentions that the cities \xcrti collecting heavy traffic fees from people who rare.y use,,! the roads and that city r'weliors paying more than their share of taxation. He stated that it L>34 'the population in the Counties was 492,593 and in 1928 it was 520,560—an increase of 6.3 per cent, in 14 years, in the same period the rates collected by. the counties increased from £754,000 to £1,975,646— 'a rise of 161 per cent. Consequently it could not be suggested that County ratepayers were not bearing'their fair burden in the co&t of constructing roads. It was a case where the interests of the car-owners and the people who -made the roads were -identical. From 1913 to 1926 the value of New Zealand produce exported increased by 28 per cent., which did not compensate for the very high increase in 'rates. OPINIONS OF COUNTY ENGINEERS Wishing to ascertain the attitude of the counties on the question of road maintenance, Mr Walkley had sent a circular to all County engineers. To the question whether they considered that heavy motor vehicles, as defined by the regulations, did serious damage to the roads of their counties, 100 per cent, of the engineers replied in the affirmative. Asked if provision for heavy traffic involved them in extra capital cost for construction,. 96 per cent, replied affirmatively. To a question as to the efficacy of a heavy traffic fee graduated upwards, 95 per cent, replied to the effect that the present legislation in that respect, was the most scientific way of making the user pay his share of the cost of the road. A

further question submitted was, "If your county's share of heavy traffic 'fees becomes no longer available, can you maintain the roads without increasing your rates?" The answer'. "No" was given in all cases. ( Mr Walkley lcntarked that, very: frequently in New Zealand, tha Town versus Country issue was raised. This should not be so, because the interests of both were so closely linked that they were inseparable. Though the farmer was ' well able to look after himself politically, there whs'always the tendency to push a little heavier burden on to the man on the land if possible, lie Thought it wa,s in the .'interests, of

town dwellers to see that they did not place too heavy a load on the shoulders' of the country dwellers. Last month he addressee! the Dominion con-

ference of the Farmers' Union, and were whole-heartedly with the motorists; and ho expected to get instruc-

tions from the Counties Association to taice the matter up on their behalf.

POSITION OF THE RAILWAYS

One of the greatest bugbears in national financefi, Mr Walkley added had been the financing of the Dominion's railways. Where.they wore he ing run at a loss that could only ').)• aggravated if the running cost of lorries were reduced through a lowering of the heavy traffic fees. The lorries carried the most profitable lines, leaving the railways to carry the essentials at much lower rates than the carriers could offer. Somebody would have to make up the deficit, and who could da so more conveniently thon the goneral body of taxpayers? The Government had set ud a Transport Advisory Council, 'and he thought that the principle of the user paying for the road would be one of the slrongest arguments against a re-distribution of the tax in respect of lorries. In concluding, Mr Walkley said hehoped- that his hearers would see that the attitude of the organised motorists in New Zealand was much the same as •in other parts of the world. "We arc .not selfish people," he said, "and not ,road-hogs. Although you may not believe it, we are quite decent citizens and are doing what we believe to be our best in the interests of the country."

Mr Hamilton, in moving a hearty vote of thanks to Mr Walkley for his interesting address, said that that gentleman had shed light on a number of aspects of the transport question, and his information must have been of

value to ,a number of local motorists who were, present. The motion' was carried by acclamation, and Mr Walkley briefly returned thanks.