Subsidy On County Roads

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 12, Issue 46, 14 May 1948, Page 5

Subsidy On County Roads

Whakatane Proposition To Ward Conference

“That the Government be approached again to pay county councils a £2 for £1 contribution for the maintenance of roads other than main highways, such contribution to be made available on the same basis and in lieu of the present rate subsidy, and further that the county councils retain their present full rights and control over the expending of the money and without review by any Government department.”

That motion was submitted by Mr J. L. Burnett, Whakatane County chairman, to the County Councils’ ward conference at Hamilton recently and finally carried after having been amended by the deleting of the words, “without .review by any Government Department.”

Mr Burnett asked that the conference enter an emphatic protest against the decision of the Government to close the Main Highways Account and seize for general* purposes the funds originally designed to maintain and expand the highway system. He submitted that such action relegated the programme of the Main Highways Board to a place of secondary importance and the absorption of the petrqfl tax by the Consolidated Fund meant that all guarantee of future good roading throughout the Dominion was conditional on how much of the tax was required by the Government for general purposes.

Mr Burnett said the motorist had been taxed to provide better roads. In the past 11 years at least half of the total tax, £50,000,000, had gone into the Consolidated Fund.

Continuing, he said he was not in favour of lessening the tax. All the money should be used as originally intended, on improving the roads. Counties required money to maintain other than State highways, and could not possibly find all that was needed by way of rates on land. The motion was generally supported by delegates from Taumarunui, Matamata, Franklin and Mangonui. ,

Mr J. N. Massey (Franklin) traversed the evidence before the Local Government Committee, and pointed out that no Government was likely to hand over such a huge subsidy without retaining some supervision. Mr A. C. Baxter, M.P., said it was not the present Government’s policy to retain all the petrol tax, but Mr Nash had made it clear that his view was >to retain some part of it for other than direct aid' to local bodies for roading. Mr Baxter said the position was comparable with the tax on liquor. Nobody would advocate that that revenue should be used in improving hotels. Some tax-payers-were asking for £ for £ subsidy* on, maintenance, but they were also asking for tax reduction. It was idle to ask for both. The Government was trying to provide for access to backblock settlers and at the same time help to improve the moreused roads. He conceded that some properties now occupied were uneconomical,'but they were very few. In brief, it was necessary to see that backblocks roads were

provided before good roads were

made better.

Mr W. A. Lee, ward represen-< tative on the Counties’ Association executive, told of the Counties’ Association representations since 1935 and how the petrol tax had been used. He was agreeable to .some supervision by departmental officers and claimed that in almost all instances such officers and local bodies should adopt the recommendations of the Local Governments Committee.

Several other delegates spoke on the subject, generally approving the need for £ for £ subsidy.