FARMERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE.

Putaruru Press, 19 January 1928, Page 6

FARMERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE.

TO COUNTY COUNCIL.

Overlapping and Waste,

A questionnaire was received by the Matamata County Council ,on Friday -from the Auckland branch of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union relative to Highway Board and other matters. The council replied as indicated, after an interesting discussion. The questions asked were:— (1) Does the council consider it in the national interest to adhere to the Highways Act with slight amendments, or to hand over all national highways to the Main Highways Board.

(2) Would it be an advantage if the chairman of the Counties’ Association was chairman of the Highways Board, and also if chairmen of district councils were county representatives ?

(3) Would a fresh classification of counties and road boards be advisable, grouping them with a view to economy in the matter of overhead expense such matters as transport facilities, loans and community of interest being taken into consideration, standardised accounts to be kept and the unit to be of sufficient size to allow of a competent engineer, surfaceman and economically engaged clerical staff duties of Main Highways Board being confined to allocation of funds, policy matters and oversight of District Council ? (4) Would one direct audit by Audit Department on highways account, covering subsidy, grant, loan, and county fund contributions, be advantageous ? (5) Would the adoption of practical standards in roading, metalling and bridging matters be an improvement?

(6) Would the appointment of ah inspecting and advisory engineer to advise with regard to all roads be an advantage, such engineer to be always oh that job only? (7) Is there at present duplication in work done by bodies dealing with roads which could be cut out, in preparation of plans and specifications, in survey or in any other respect ? (8) What percentage would you suggest to cover all engineering and supervision in the case of adoption of a general scheme ? The letter stated the farmers’ executive felt there was a risk of too hasty centralisation, and that although the principle of “ users of roads to pay for roads ” was a right

one, there might be a danger of roads being handed over to a body which would have a tendency to do everything regardless of expense. It was desired to investigate the possibilities of a middle course, eliminating waste and duplication of staff: The council decided to deal with each question in turn, and supplied the following answers:— 1. The council considered it would be a big mistake to hand over all roads to the Main Highways Board. 2. Public Works engineers made the best chairmen as they were in touch with all work going on. 3. The council decided this question was not explicit, and that further information was desirable. Cr. Judd held that it referred to counties, many of which he thought were too small.

Questions 4, 5 and 6 were also treated in the same manner, the council declining to commit itself without further information. 7. The council decided there was duplication and that the better method was for all moneys to be handed over to councils which would then do the work, whether roadmaking or surveys. i . ;: • i-