HIGHWAYS EXFENDITUURE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 791, 11 October 1929, Page 6

HIGHWAYS EXFENDITUURE

CONTROL BY BOARD QUESTIONED HOUSE REJECTS AMENDMENT Press Association WELLINGTON, Thursday. Exception to the lack of detail accompanying a vote of £ 1.000,000 for the improvement, maintenance and repair of main highways led to a protracted debate in the House this evening, when the Estimates relating to the main highways account (£1,113,250) were under consideration. Various speakers raised the further issue whether Parliament or the Highways Board should have control over the funds. Mr. .T. S. Fletcher (Grey Lynn) said the House was asked to vote over £1,000,000 without knowing how or where the money was to be spent. Replying to Mr. D. Jones (Mid-Can-terbury), the Minister of Public Works, the Hon. E. A. Ransom, said the annual £200,000 grant to local bodies had always been available. The only question had been whether it was to be free of interest or not. The Rev. C. L. Carr (Timaru) asked whether some alternative system could be evolved to avoid the annual replacement of number plates for motorcars. He said it should be possible to save expense in this direction. The Minister said the suggestion would be considered. Members asked what was the position in relation to the annual expenditure of £1.000,000 on the improvement. maintenance and repair of main highways. The Minister said it was stipulated by the Act that money, once it had been paid into the Main Highways Account, should be expended at the discretion of the Main Highways Board. It was laid down that it should be removed from political control. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Egmont) moved that the vote bo reduced by £lO as an indication to the Government that the control <#f such a vast sum of money by public servants, without check by Parliament^was not in the best interests of thql*L>untry. Mr. W. Poison (Stratford) said it was known that the control of this sum of money was in the hands of a few officials and was actually controlled by one man. Other members protested against this state of affairs. Mr. S. G. Smith, the Chairman of Committees, said it would require legislation to alter the position, and members were out of order in discussing any alteration in legislation. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Coates, said the Act provided for regulations stipulating that the money should be expended only on main highways and governing the extent of the subsidies. The board could provide an amount in excess of the regulations only by the consent of the Minister, or by declaring a particular road a Government road. It had been recognised when ihe legislation was passed that it would be better to have the control of this money in the hands of a non-political board, and he believed it would be admitted that the control of main highways had been a success. The Minister stated that no road was declared a main highway without the consent of the Minister. Once it had been declared a highway the board determined what should be the amount

of subsidy permissible, which at the present time was £2 for £l. He believed there was general satisfaction throughout the Dominion with the working of the Highways Board. Air. A. Hamilton (Wallace) said it was really the motorists who had contributed this money through the tyre tax and the petrol tax; the State’s contribution was comparatively small. Motorists had agreed to taxation for the purpose of obtaining good roads, and they were entitled to a say in how the money was spent. It was not actually a matter for Parliament; control should be in the hands of the Highways Board, on which the motorists were represented. The Minister said all the expenditure was safeguarded in every way. The accounts had to be submitted to auditors, and a statement had to be presented periodically to the House, as provided in the Act. There had been very little complaint about the way the funds were distributed. The Hon. W. D. Stewart (Dunedin West) pointed out that when, iu 1922, motorists subjected themselves to special taxation, they asked that it should be earmarked for special purpose. The money did not actually form part of the general tax revenue. Air. Fletcher said it was not right to say motorists contributed most of the sum. Everybody who travelled by motor-bus or transmitted freight by motor contributed to this taxation. Air. Wilkinson’s amendment to reduce the vote was then put. and a division was called for, resulting in the amendment being defeated by 57 votes to 12. The vote was then passed. Those who voted for the amendment were:—Messrs. W. E. Barnard, C. L. Carr, J. S. Fletcher, J. T. Hogan, E. J. Howard, F. Langstone, W. D. Lysnar, W. L. Martin, H. G. R. Mason, W, J. Poison, H. M. Rushworth, and C. A. Wilkinson.