HIGHWAYS BOARD

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 14, 27 October 1932, Page 2

HIGHWAYS BOARD

ABOLITION OPPOSED. LOCAL BODIES’ ATTITUDE. (Special to the “Guardian.”) CHRISTCHURCH, This Day

Strong, but not unanimous, opposition to the recommendations of the National Expenditure Commission that the Highways Board should be abolished was expressed at a conference of representatives of local bodies held yesterday morning* The conference, which was convened by the Canterbury Progress League, agreed to a resolution opposing the proposals of the Commission and urging the retention of the present system. Mr C. Flavell (chairman of the Heathcote County Council, and president of the Progress League) was in the chair, and the following local bodies and other organisations were represented :

Sumner Borough Council, Halswell County Council, Paparua County Council, Ellesmere County Council, Kowai County Council, New Brighton County Council, Rangiora County Council, Oxford County Council, Springs County Council, Riccarton Borough Council, Waipara County Council, Christchurch City Council, Eyre County Council, Cheviot County Council, Malvern County Council, Tawera County Council, Lyttelton Borough Council, Waimairi County Council, Heathcote County Council, Rangiora Borough Council, Selwyn County Council, Ashburton County Council, South Island Motor Union, Canterbury Automobile Association.

Messrs J. Moore (chairman) and G. Kelly (clerk) represented the Ashburton County Council.

“Cap in Hand.” “IE really seems almost unbelievable that business men, such as composed this Commission, should have made such a recommendation to the Government,” said the chairman in opening the conference. “The recommendations means,” he said, “that instead of receiving the money for roads as by right, the local bodies in the future would have to go, cap in hand, to the Mr J. Moore moved: “That this conference of Canterbury local bodies and motoring organisa-. tions, while fully appreciating the financial difficulties of the Government and recognising the necessity for the strictest economy in order that the Budget may be balanced at ail early date, disagrees absolutely with the National Expenditure Commission’s recommendation that the Highways Fund should be abolished, and urges—- “ First: That the Highways Fund should be maintained; “Secondly: That at the earliest possible date all special motor taxation should be paid into that fund.

“That this conference, having examined. the statement on motor taxation and highways issued by the Canterbury Progress League, gives its fullest endorsement to that statement, and urges the adoption of the principles contained therein by other similar bodies and by the Govenrment.” If effect were given to the Commission’s recommendation, he said, it would mean a reversion to the system of political pull and influence for every penny that the local bodies obtained.

Putting the Clock Back. Mr W. K. McAlpine (Waipara County) seconded the motion. “We fought for years to get this thing,” he said, in defending the present system, “and it is givnig entire satisfaction to the local bodies. To> go back to the old system now is putting the clock back 10 years.” It was not a matter of helping the railways, he added. Roads were the first consideration. “If we do not make a strenuous fight,” he said, “there is no doubt that with the pull they have in Wellington, and with the Government behind it —because they are behind it —we will allow them to do a thing that is not in the interests of New Zealand. We have to put our backs into this and fight, and fight hard.” Mr J. W. Beanland (Christchurch City) said the city would help the opposition to the Commission’s proposals. They wished to retain the rights the local bodies now had. . Mr F. W. Johnston (Automobile Association) said that the payed roads had saved the local bodies thousands of pounds in maintenance. The aim of the Commission seemed to save —he would not say bolster up—the railways, but the railways must not be preserved at the cost of the absolute annihilation of road transport. In road transport lay the industrial expansion of the future.

“This is not repudiation, it is embezzlement,” declared Mr A. Holden (Sumner Borough), attacking the proposals of the Government.

Need for Economy. Mr O. H. Adams (Malvern' County) opposed the motion. While they admitted the need for economy, he said, no particular body would agree that it should be the body affected by the economy. If they could not afford to pay for these good roads, then they must do without them. The State could not afford to "o on the way it had been going. The' railways had to be paid for. The Highways Board was an expensive board. There must be a considerable amount of over-lapping. Mr J. Hislop (Ellesmere County) said a lot of the motor-cars were absolute luxuries. He thought it would be quite legitimate at the present time to charge a shilling a gallon on petrol for the benefit of the State. Mr M. E. Lyons (Christchurch City) said that something in the nature of a trust fund had been set up for the improvement of the roads, and if that was to be jettisoned then the present motor taxation was iniquitous class taxation and should be reviewed or abolished.

Mr H. G. Parrish (Oxford County) said the wheat-growers relied on motor traffic to take their wheat to the railhead. It was only through the help given by the motorists that the poorer local bodies were able to maintain their roads. The resolution was carried by an overwhelming majority. It was agreed that the conference should be represented on a deputation that will meet the Prime Minister today to discuss the report of the Commission.