MAIN ROADS.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 September 1921, Page 7

MAIN ROADS.

I THE NEW PROPOSALS. LOCAL BODIES’ MEWS. CHANGE OF CONTROL OPPOSED. A conference of delegates of Taranaki local bodies was held at Eitham yesterday to discuss the Main Roads Bill, which the Hon. J. G. Coates (Minister of Public Works) is to introduce at the coining session of Parliament. Mr. C. J. Belcher (Eitham County Council) presided, and the following delegates were present: Messrs. R. J. Knuckey, E. J. Gifford (Eitham County Council), E. Walter (Stratford County Council), T. Linn, J. B. Murdoch (Hawera County Council), A. Corkill (Inglewood County Council), McPhillips, Bridge (Wannate West County Council), J. Connett (Taranaki County Council), G. W. Tayler, H. D. Forsyth, J. Carter (Eitham Borough Council), and J. Campbell (Eitham Drainage Board), and the county engineers for Eitham, Waimate West, Stratford and Inglewood. The following members of Parliament attended by invitation: Messrs. S. G. Smith, R. Masters, E. Dixon and, O. Hawken. Mr. Jull (chairman of the Dominion Counties’ Conference) was also present. Mr. C. J. Belcher extended a hearty welcome to the members of Parliament and Mr. Jull, and also to the delegates present. Mr. Belcher said that they were met as a local bodies’ association, the idea being

that they could help one another. They had, in meetings held in former years, put through good by-laws and had got uniform rates of wages throughout the different counties. During the five years they had been working they had had no funds, and they wished for support from local bodies. They wished to be organised as a proper constitution. He asked the secretary to read through the rules which had been prepared for the association.

The rules stated that the association was formed to promote efficient government of local matters throughout the province.

The following officers were elected: President, Mr. C. J. Belcher; vice-president, Mr. J. B. Murdoch; auditor, Mr. Parrott; committee to consist of the chairman or Mayor of each affiliated local body, or such deputy as he may appoint. THE POSITION EXPLAINED. Mr. Belcher said that since calling the conference to discuss the Main Roads Bill they had had a letter from the Dominion Counties’ Conference suggesting that they should not criticise the Bill. They could not discuss the Bill, because they did not have the Bill to discuss. There was no other part in New Zealand that had the same tar-sealed roads as Taranaki, and, as far as Eitham County was concerned, it would be hit particularly hard if the Government were to take up the roads. They had to look at the matter from a county point of view, which was entirely different from the public point of view. From the public point oi view all the roads were built, and would need very little maintenance, and if they were to be taxed again to pay for Auckland roads, which were poor, the public would be against the Bill. The Government might find they had bitten off more than they could chew. When one saw the big plant which had to be set up for only the county work it looked as if it would be 100 years before the big Government road would be built. He thought that when the Bill got through Parliament it would consist of the headlines and little else. The secretary read through a resume of the Main Roads Bill from a newspaper interview. The Minister stated in the interview that the Government would take over the building and upkeep of arterial roads, and local bodies would lose the control of the roads and the revenue for their building and upkeep. Mr. Forsyth said that if the Government were quite honest in their intentions there was no doubt that the main loads would be a benefit to all. Although some of the counties were hit, it would be beneficial to other counties. It would be a heavy tax on the Eitham Borough Council, because they had a large amount of motor traffic. It would be a benefit to those with not so many motor cars and a larger amount of road to maintain to have the Bill brought in. PLEA FOR LOCAL BODIES. Mr. Jull said that the circular which had been sent from the Counties’ Association had not been sent with a view to putting an embargo upon discussion. They bad affirmed and re-affirmed at various conferences the opinion that the Government should not supersede the local bodies in the control of local roads. The prime object of the Bill was an assertion of the failure of the local bodies and the probability of the success of Government control of the roads. The local bodies had not had a fair trial. The Government subeidiet which had been paid had been paid in a grossly unfair and chaotic way, which had not given the assistance they needed. The Government’s system of subsidy showed that the biggest subsidy which could be paid was £2500, which worked out in some cases at less than 2s in the £l. In other cases it had amounted to 10s in the £. The Bill suggested that no alteration would be proposed in the general question of finances for local bodies, but it sought to take over the arterial roads. It was not fair to local bodies that they should be starved of finances and then have complaints made that they were not capable.

He touched on the suggestion made by the Counties’ Association, that instead of the present system of subsidy a subsidy should be given of 10s in the £ on the general rates of the counties; the Government should take the tax on motor traffic, and a board should be set up consisting of two members appointed by the Government and one recommended by the Counties’ Conference, in the capacity of an ordinary board to co-operate in standardising road-making throughout the country, and it should have the disposal of funds for the research work necessary for the carrying out of the work. It would be manifestly impossible to devise a scheme of distribution of motor taxation so that each local authority would receive its fair and equitable amount of taxation, and therefore it was decided that the Government should revise the system of subsidy. Anything that was going to seriously undermine the status of the local bodies was not in the best interests of the Dominion.

Mr. McPhillips said he was opposed to the Bill, which would become unduly hard on those counties which had made good roads. It appeared that the Government was going to make other parts of New Zealand pay for the making of roads in the roadless north. Instead of tyre tax coming back to the counties which provided good roads it would be spent in other districts, which was not justice. He favored local bodies constructing their own roads, and asking for an increased subsidy. ALTERATION DISAPPROVED OF. Mr. Murdoch said that Mr. Jull had put the positiomia * autaball whan he said that

we did not want the Government to take the control of roads from local bodies. He moved; “That this meeting disapprove of any alteration in the control of roads throughout New Zealand. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Public Works the majority of the main roads would be through miles of country where only ‘joy riders’ passed over them.”

Mr. Connett seconded the motion. He was satisfied that local bodies would stand by the opinion that they were quite* able to do the work if they were provided with sufficient money. It was a matter for sincere regret that the Government had missed the opportunity of taxing the motorist years ago.

Mr. Forsyth said that he was in. accord with the motion, but there was room for interference by the Government in parts where the county councils were not keeping roads efficiently. But no Government was going to keep the roads in as good condition as the county councils could. INCREASED SUBSIDY WANTED. Mr. Hawken, M.P., said the Government should help very much more than it had been doing for years past. The subsidy was not sufficient, and was on a wrong basis. This was a very important point. The subsidy was brought in about 30 years ago, and the fact that it only subsidised the first id of rate had been a very inequitable thing, and had acted very largely in favor of the South Island, where reading was easy. An alteration had been needed for many years, but the Bill did not propose to alter the state of affairs. There was no reason why the subsidy should not be paid on the whole rate. Local bodies should be given another chance, with further assistance from the Government. The main roads would run, most of them, alongside the railways, but the two should not go together. The roads should be the feeders of the railways. To put a good road alongside a railway would be to take revenue away from the railway. If the counties had a reasonable subsidy they could finish every road they had in a few years, and make them, so far as local requirements were concerned, perfect roads. Mr. E. Walter said that he was certain that the Stratford Council got 50 per cent, better value for their money than the Government would do. They could not help looking at it in a parochial spirit. If they had in increased subsidy they could do well. The main force behind the Government in preparing the Bill was coming from the cities. Not 30 per cent, of those in his county would benefit; the benefits to Taranaki would be nil.

The motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Smith, M.P., thanked the chairman for the invitation to be present, and said that he would be opposed to centralised control.