Cities Seek Bigger Share Petrol-Tax

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 200, 12 November 1927, Page 12

Cities Seek Bigger Share Petrol-Tax

ALLOCATION OF REVENUE NORTH VERSUS SOUTH AGAIN (THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Friday. It is possible that before the Motor Spirits Taxation Bill is finally washed up by Parliament an alteration in the allocation of revenue derived from the imposition of the 4d a gallon will be made because persistent representation has been made to the Government by city interests, which contend that the centres should receive a greater proportion of the money because of the greater proportion of revenue coming from thicklypopulated areas. The Question was raised in the House this evening by Mr. V. H. Potter, KosKill, who asked that revenue from petrol tax should be distributed more in favour of the cities which would contribute the greater part of the money. The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, said that representations had been made to him regarding Wellington which was in a similar position to that of other centres. The whole question was being gone into to see if the allocation could be altered, and it was possible that after the preparation of figures, an amendment would be made in the Bill when it came before the Legislative Council. Mr. T. K. Sidey, Dunedin South, moved an amendment to the Bill seeking to have revenue from the tax expended in each island according to the respective number of cars and vehicles registered. Mr. Sidey exolained that he did not wish to raise rho question of North versus South, lie proposed that revenue from the petrol tax should be paid into the revenue account of the Main Highways Fund and applied in the same way as revenue from the present tyre tax. It was only executing the principle which the Government had already recognised. NORTH NEEDS MORE Mr. W. D. Lysnar. Gisborne, claimed that the amendment raised the North versus South controversy, which was inadvisable, for more development was required in the North than in the South. Mr. D. G. Sullivan. Avon, said that the whole main highways scheme was not satisfactory so far as the South Island was concerned. Mr. J. Bitchener, Waitaki: Oh, it’s all right down our way. Mr. Sullivan: Well, it might be all right in your district, but complaints have been made from all over Canterbury. Mr. Coates: Do-you think this proposal is sound? Mr. Sullivan: If it tied down the Main Highways Board I would hesitate to support it, but this leaves it to the discretion of the board. Mr. Coates: Would you apply the •dine to the railways? Mr. Sullivan: The South Island pays for its roads and railways to a very large extent. 'Reform members: Oh, no. Mr. Sullivan: So far as Canterbury fc> concerned this applies. Mr. G. W. Forbes, Leader of the National Party, complained goodhumouredly that the North Island was stealing the population from the South. ‘lf you were not taking our people,” he said, ‘‘our railways would be paying and we would have greater representation in this House.” FUTILE DISCUSSION The Minister of Public Works, the Hon. K. S. Williams, said that he could Hot accept Mr. Sidey’s amendment as he did not think there should be any distinction between the two islands, and he asked Mr. Sidey to accept his assurance that there would be no North versus South feeling as far as he was concerned. He did not want money tied up any more definitely than could possibly be helped. There were parts of New Zealand in which the money could be better spent away from the centres of population than adjacent to them. For instance, on the West Coast of the South Island, larger contribution must be needed than in parts of Canterbury or Otago, where reading work was more easily done. Motorists wished to go to places like the West Coast, where there were scenic resorts, and better roads were needed for them. * Mr. Forbes refused to b? placated by the Minister’s assurance, and said that Mr. Williams’s refusal to nccept the

principle of allocation according to the number of cars indicated that he intended to exercise a discretion which Air. Forbes believed would not be fair to the South Island. The wrangle was carried on for a short time by other members until Air. Sidey, recognising the futility of the discussion, said that he would not press his amendment, and allowed it to be defeated on the voices.