HIGHWAYS FUND

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 15, 28 October 1932, Page 2

HIGHWAYS FUND

CONTINUANCE PROMISED.

ASSURANCE BY THE PREMIER. (Special to the "Guardian.") WELLINGTON, October 27. An assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to abolish the separate account of the Main Highways Funds was given by Mr Forbes to-day in replying to a deputation, representing the Counties' Association, the Farmers' Union, the North and South Island Motor Unions and the Canterbury Progress League, which protested against the National Expenditure Adjustment Commission's recommendation, that the funds should be abolished. Members of Parliament were also present.

The deputation was introduced by Mr W. J. Poison, M.P., who said that the organisations represented, were deeply concerned over the proposal of the Commission that the whole of the highways finance should be absorbed in the Consolidated Fund. It was felt that if the recommendation were to be put into effect the system would be endangered. They were satisfied with the Highways Board as a system. Mr W. H. Wynward, speaking as a. representative of the motorists, reviewed the establishment of the fund and said there was a distinct understanding that the tax should be marked for special roading purposes. Mr L. Hammond, representing the Farmers' Union, said that deterioration of roads would increase and the farming community would suffer more than anybody else. On behalf of the North and South' Island Motor Unions, Mr W. A. O'Callaghan protested against the recommendations by the Commission.

Motorists' Opinions. Mr W. G. Walkley (secretary of the North Island Motor Union) said the National Expenditure Commission had not had the opportunity of investigating the position as closely as had the select committee which was se.t up previously. Motor organisations, always had been satisfied with the administration of the Highways Fund. He denied that grandiose schemes had. been put into operation by the board. If motor taxation was directed toward the object for which it was originally intended, farmers would ultimately get relief.

Mr.F. W. Freeman (vice-president of the South Island Motor Union) said the Main Highways Act was mainly a derating Act. Motor taxation had been increased considerably in recent years. Had there not been a series of legislative enactments, the Main Highways Revenue Fund might this year have been £2,500,000 instead of £850,000. A select committee of the House had come to the conclusion that there should be a separate fund and that :t should be earmarked for roading purposes. An important aspect was motor •transportation foi- the dairying industry. On behalf of the Canterbury Progress League, Mr Freeman submitted the resolutions carried at a conference of Canterbury local bodies and motor organisations protesting against the Commission's proposal.

Prime Minister's Reply. Replying, Mr Forbes said it had been said that the ear-marking of special funds was i not the soundest tning to do, but there were many things which did not square" up with the very soundest of opinions. Earmarking of funds might mean that sectional interests would say that the money should be spent for their benefit and there would be nothing left for the Government. However there were special funds, such as the Unemployment Fund and the principal of special funds had been recognised in regard to the Highways Fund. He wanted to say) in justice to the automobile associations thai motorists had recognised the necessities of public finance when the position had been put to them.

The necessities of public finance had to come first and foremost, said Mr Forbes, and it is in the interests of everybody td see that ,the public finance was kept in a sound state, irrespective of special funds. The fact of their being a special fund had never embarrassed the Government, because the motorist had recognised the position. "I can tell you," said Mr Forbes, "that it is not the intention of the Government to abolish the separate account in regard to the Highways Fund." (Applause.)