Unspent Roads Funds Allegedly “Lost For Ever”

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28260, 24 April 1957, Page 14

Unspent Roads Funds Allegedly “Lost For Ever”

Dissatisfaction with the present system adopted by the National Roads Board for the yearly allocation of money for use by local bodies on roading projects was expressed by members of the No. 13 District Roads Council when they met at Waipara yesterday.

Claims were made that local bodies throughout New Zealand were being penalised when projects were not completed on time and that more than £300,000 of allocated money was not spent. This sum, although allocated by the board to various local bodies,

was “lost for ever,” members claimed. Mr R. C. Neville, representing heavy trade-vehicle users, told the council: “We are often told the contractors let local bodies down; or the weather obstructed the completion of a contract in a given time. “This means that money which has been allocated for one year

is often not used and is lost for ever. It is not added to the next year’s allocation for any one organisation. My organisation does not wan,t to .see this become a regular thing. They pay to have this roads board and they expect good value for their money.” He produced a table showing an unexpended amount of £316,281 in the last three years of allocation by the National Roads Board. £316,000 Not Spent “In 1954-55, £112,096 allocated was not spent. The- next year, £127,189 was unspent. In the 1956-57 year, £76,996 was unspent. It does not look too good; £316,000 granted for reading and not spent. It is an indictment against the Ministry of Works,” said Mr Neville. Supporting this view, Mr C. N. McKenzie (Waipara county) emphasised that this figure was only that which affected the local council. “The position is the same with main, highways as it is with the State highways. The National Roads Board must know what each council is getting. Once that money has been given it should be there for good. We should not be penalised. The date for completion of projects should be extended if necessary to complete the work. We have had three cuts in three years.” Mr A. E. Clark, District Commissioner of Works, replied that his department was as concerned as council members were over the matter. Often it was due. to causes which could not be controlled. The Hope River bridge project was a big item which had not been running to schedule. “It is hard to avoid these positions. When a contractor cannot meet his obligations it is not easy

to do anything about it. Drastic steps often cause further delay. This project, for example, seems to be straight sailing now and completion can be expected in the current year,” he said. Contracts Let Too Late

Contracts were often let too Jate, Mr Neville commented. Often money was approved, and the jobs were not undertaken for a considerable time. This applied to some local bodies as well as to the Ministry of Works. “If the system of letting contracts is not successful the National Roads Board should investigate the position and find another system.” Because the National Roads Board worked on a yearly account basis money unspent could not be reallocated, replied Mr Clark. Every year the board allocated the full amount it had on hand.

Members suggested that an extension of one month be given if work had been delayed. This would not mean a complete loss of yearly allocations. “If the board closes its accounts on March 31, an item could be left until a fortnight or so later. Otherwise, we will lose the allocation residue for all time. The board must have this in credit for this district.”

Mr Neville said the problem was caused because the board closed its. accounts on March 15, contractors ended on March 31, and the season ended on March 31.

, ‘‘This fortnight makes all the difference. And fpr the next 25 years, unless it is stopped, it will always be the trouble,” Mr Neville said. Local bodies were as much to blame as the Ministry of Works.