The GRTU held separate meetings with the various sectors of the car trade. Each sector has its own interests most of which clash directly with those of the others. This was reported in the article GRTU Pushes For Registration Tax Solution (The Times Business, April 17). A union looks after the interests of its members. That is how it should be. What is unwarranted is the GRTU giving advice on what the consumer should want. That is the consumer's business, and maybe that of consumers' unions and councils.
The latter have been rather disinterested in the matter and I would speculate that they have not been consulted by the government as the de facto representatives of consumers.
On "minimum registration tax" Mr Farrugia declared that this minimum tax was introduced because it is not in Malta's interest to encourage dumping of very cheap, possibly old and polluting cars. It is not in Malta's interest to allow old and polluting cars coming into Malta or already on our roads but it is very much in the interest of consumers to have access to choice and a fair deal on cars available in the Single European Market. The truth is that the amount of minimum tax payable was engineered to match, and sometimes exceed, the tax paid on new car imports of popular models and used as a protectionist tool in favour of new car importers. If the aim of this provision of the registration tax law had the environment at heart, why have we ended up with an aged and polluting passenger and commercial vehicle fleet and an explosion in the market share of the second hand imports in the last five years? A car tax incentive in Greece in 1992 and 1993 resulted in increased purchases of new cars and increased scrappage of old ones leading to a measurable improvement in air quality in Athens. The GRTU is not in favour of reducing the tax component of the price of a car because it also reduces the value of all the other cars. Crocodile tears for the consumer? As the GRTU is not a consumer's union, I think that it is unqualified to preach to the rest of us. Car traders all over the world have a reputation of being sly and would sell you a vehicle at an appreciated price while they would offer a low price for your "trade-in".
The savings gained by removing registration tax altogether (an unlikely outcome) from a new vehicle would be greater than the loss of value of a not-so-old trade-in.
As regards badly maintained and scruffy cars which may have fetched under €1,000 last year, I shed no tears if they had to disappear from Maltese roads altogether.
I would favour the thesis that members of the GRTU were very comfortable with the registration tax law as it was and it is only because the European Commission is breathing down Malta's neck that car traders began getting out of their comfortable seats. If I had to decide who truly champions the cause of the consumer I would name the European institutions without batting an eyelid.
As regards loss of value of stock of the second-hand car dealers, it is, of course, unfair to leave second-hand car importers high and dry after they had to pay registration tax up front before having their imports released from bond.
There should be no ifs and buts from the government and their yet unsold stock imported during a set period, say during the previous 12 to 18 months, should get refunded the adjusted tax difference. Tax refunds should be given in cases of classic or old collectable vehicles which have been in their inventories for longer. This should be an acceptable compromise for the GRTU members.
I would not expect any GRTU official to have the gall to say that they are ready to keep the Maltese consumer hostage to safeguard the interests of a section of their members. The rebellion against the Dark Side has started (with apologies to George Lucas).