HIGHWAYS FINANCE

Hokitika Guardian, 23 July 1931, Page 3

HIGHWAYS FINANCE

MR ANSELL'S CRITICISM

REPLY BY MR FORBES

(By Telegraph—Per Frets Astociation)

WELLINGTON, July 22. “The remarks that Mr Ansell M.P , j made at Eltham last Saturday, in connection with main highways finance,” said the Prime Minister, “are such that if the speaker was correctly reported, it might mislead people, especially farmers, if not corrected. In the first place, for the financial year recently completed the revenues, provided for the highways account were not only sufficient to cover all charges thereon, but actuallly left a balance ’of £300,000 for transfer to the construction account. That Mr Ansell was not an fait with his subject was quite clear, when he said the increased petrol, tax went into the Consolidated Fund. Such was not the case, as reference to the legislation will clearly show. The increased tax went to the highways funds, and certain road costs and grants, previously charged against the Consolidated Fund, were logically transferred and charged against the additional revenue of 2d a gallon specially provided for highways revenue fund. 1 ;

“Mr Ansell in his attempt to cloud, the issue, suggests in effect that the farmer is- not vitally .interested in the balancing of the State Budget, and that tire change mad,© by the Govern--ment was not in the farmers’ interests. Let me say that the change was essential in the interests of the taxpayers of the Dominion, in’ which category the farmers play no small part. The original proposal introduced by the Government, and explained in the Budget, provided for an additiona tax of 3d a gallon, of which Id a gallon estimated to produce in normal times £330,000 per annum, was intended for expenditure on' backblock roods, and it was due to Mr Ansell and some of his supporters, that this material help : to Jarmers Was excluded f ,- om the ? |egisla,tion. . . “ • . - “A further statement by Mr Ansell as reported, is equally incorrect and misleading, wherein! lie remarked that the Government had withdrawn from the roads £510,000. As already: pointed but;; the Government provided for extra-funds required to enable;the highways account' to meet the highways charge's.’ viz., subsidies,' £220,000: interest, £61,000; granted £35.000: total £316,000. The balance of £200,000 re presents loan funds for construction purposes which are not withdrawn at all, but are borrowed under the highways loan authorities in lieu, of under, the -'public works loan?authorities, .-as. was' fofnierlv done.” ■ ' .