Allocation of Roads Fund

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28270, 7 May 1957, Page 13

Allocation of Roads Fund

The good case for revision ol the National Roads Act is not helped by intemperate criticism

such as that made by the Mayor? of Gisborne (Mr H. H. at the annual meeting of thJ No. 4 District Roads Council? The National Roads Board does not need any release from “legislative fetters”, and if the municipalities have any com--plaint about the calculation osf* subsidies to local authorities; they have only themselves to blame. The Sheat Committee's report, on which the act was based, recommended that subsidies to all local authorities; should be based on roadingexpenditure. This sound prin-. ciple was weakened by the insistence of the county councils that their subsidies should be calculated on general rates. It; was much further weakened by the decision to base the municipal subsidy on population instead of on roading expenditure. This appeared to be the wish of the municipalities; and, indeed, the change would n ot have been made if they h ad objected. It is a little late in the day for a mayor to complain that population does not grow as fast as the gratifj ring willingness of county councils to spend rate revenue on their roads. But, in fact, the caunty councils are prevented ifrom going too far in that direction by one “legislative fetter'”' of which Mr Barker presumably approves. This limits the rtotal subsidy on rates to coranty councils to 12 per cent, of the revenue of the National Roads Board. The reform that Mr Barker should ask for ds; the payment of municipal subsidies on actual roading expenditure. Then, any municipality thast was willing to improve its streets

[would be helped, and municipalities would be encouraged to [spend more from their rates on /roading improvement. A similar provision would prevent any misuse of the subsidy by counties.

I Mr Barker’s real Objection appears to be that the subsidy rate for main highway work is .fixed by statute. But this does mean that a district council (where municipalities have a voice) has to approve all the highway work proposed by any of its constituent county councils, or that the National Roads Board has to accept the decision of a district council. In fact, in the last two years district councils have had to prune main highway work severely, more heavily, it has appeared, than estimates for State highway work, the whole cost of which is borne by the national fund. Certainly the intention of the National .Roads Act was not to concentrate highway revenue on State highways. The new feature of the act was the provision of subsidies for ordinary county roads and city streets, which had never been effectively subsidised before. In spite of Mr Barker’s criticism, this new principle has given municipalities considerably greater revenue for street work, whether they used it to provide better streets or not. As to State and main highways, the act substantially repeated the did legislation, but provided larger funds and gave road users and the municipalities a greater share of control over expenditure. When the act was passed the strongest attack on it was on the ground not that the board would have too little authority but that it would have too much.