MR JULL’S CAMPAIGN

Hokitika Guardian, 3 October 1930, Page 3

MR JULL’S CAMPAIGN

REPLY TO MR COATES. <Bv Telegraph— Press Awociktion) TAKAPAU, October 2. Mr A. E. Jul), the United Party’s candidate in the Waipawa by.-elec-tion, addressed a largely attended meeting to-night. In the course of a policy speech here, recently, Mr Jull said that Mr Coates, the Reform Leader, had charged him (Mr Jull) with not protesting against the proposal. to take £316,000 of the new petrol tax to pay for the local body subsidies, for the interest on the Public Works grants, and for maintenance, instead of adding that sum to the Highways Fund. Air Coates, had said this was letting the country and ratepayers down. Continuing, Mr Jull claimed that Mr Coates’s statement was an absolutely untrue one. Air Jull said that he had called a special meeting of tin; Dominion County Council’s Association Executive in order to co .sidei the budget. The Counties’ Association Executive had decided t.o urge the Premier, Mr Forbes, to accept .the Counties’ Association Conference proposal. That proposal was that the new petrol tax be devoted to assisting the 52,500 miles of rural roads that were not now being directly assisted from the Highways Board. The N.Z. Farmers’ Union Executive, said Mr Jull, had agreed to the Counties' Conference proposal, instead off their own proposal, and their joint deputation had waited on the Prime Minister when lie (Mr Jull) had voiced tinrequest of both organisations. The result of their representions, he said, was that, while the Finance Minister has this year placed the above named charges on the petrol tax, instead of the Consolidated Fund, that is only to operate up to August 31st next, and during that time the local bodies would not lose their subsidies.

, The Highways Board, Mr Jull pointed out, would not receive any less money than previously, but the aforementioned charges would be thrown on the road user, instead of being thrown on the general taxpayer. Mr Jull insisted that he had not let the county ratepayers down. Mr Jull said that. Mr Coates had also stated that he (Mr Coates) had had a decided say in appointing him (Mr Jull) to the Main Highways Board. The candidate, however, ppintel out that the real fact was that Mr Geates had refused to appoint Mr J. D. Bruce and himself (Mr A. E. Jull), who were recommended, and Mr Coates had asked the Counties’ Executive for other recommendations. The Counties Executive had successfully resisted Mr Coates’s demand. Mr Coates had been forced to "eat the leek,” and he then made the appointment. That was how Mr Coates assisted in Mr Jull’s appointment, the candidate concluded. . ..