VOTING A MILLION.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 241, 11 October 1929, Page 3

VOTING A MILLION.

EXPENDITURE ON HIGHWAYS. WHO CONTROLS POLICY ? AN INDEPENDENT BOARD. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this clay. When the House of Representatives was asked to-night to vote £1,113,000 for the highways fund a number of members became critical of the ■ system which removes this large sum from the control of Parliament. Mr. Rushworth (Bay of Islands) started discussion by asking who was responsible for the expenditure of this million. Did the board lay down the policy, or did the Minister of Public Works exercise any influence? Hon. E. A. Ransom, Minister of Public Works, replied that the policy was laid down by Act of i-arlia-ment. The actual policy of expenditure was designed by the Highways Board itself. "Does the House not have a say throuo-h the Minister in expenditure of this vast sum?" asked Mr. Fletcher (Grey Lynn). "Is the board absolutely independent of this House?" Mr. Wilkinson (Egmont) declared that this question ought to be further debated, and to give that opportunity he moved a flO reduction in the vote as an indication that control of this vast sum by public officials was not in the interests of the country. Mr. Ransom stated that when the Highways Board was established it was laid down as a policy that its funds be expended at the board's discretion, and that it should be free from political control. He assumed that the amendment was moved by a member who thought it more desirable that expenditure should be subject to the authority of the Minister, as was done in regard tp Public Works. Mr. Rushworth declared that the Minister should at least have power of veto. How was this million spent in various parts of the Dominion, and in what proportions? Mr. Langstone remarked that neither local bodies nor the Government had a voice in spending Highways Board money. This was quite unlike the Public Works expenditure, which was subiect to Parliamentary control and the Minister's approval, with the result that the allocation was fair. If one travelled through New Zealand he could see that highways money went into nice concrete or bitumen roads near the centres of population, while country people went without.. Mr. Fletcher stated that he would support the amendment, because he objected to three officials being able to dominate the Highways Board and control very large expenditure. ."Board's Absolute. Control. "Has'the Minister any control of this money ?" asked Mr. Lysnar. "Is it allocated in a haphazard way, or on some proper basis?" ••■ ■ . , Hon. T. M. Wilford stated that declarations of main highways were subject to approval of the Minister of Public Works, who could revoke his approval. Mr. Lysnar: How is the expenditure controlled ? Mr. Wilford: By the Highways Board absolutely. Mr. Poison suggested there was something wrong with a system which required Parliament to vote a million though it would have no control over its expenditure, which, seemed to be in the hands of three public servants. In practice this meant that it was in the hands of one man, who was practically a Czar in regard to public works in New Zealand. The Right Hon. J. G. Coates, Leader of the Opposition, declared that members, on reflection, would find that the principle of control was perfectly sound. Mr. Fletcher: Absolutely vicious. Mr. Coates: Would it be vicious if applications for State advances rested with Ministers? He went on to say that the highways fund was controlled by an independent board, having representatives of county councils and motorists. It was obliged to spend its funds in accordance with regulations which classified the roads, and clearly set out the rate of subsidy, whether it be £ for £ or more. Mr. Langstone: Or any amount they like. . Mr. Coates: Only if it is a Government road, or the Minister agrees to it. The real question was whether this fund should be controlled politically or otherwise. There had been discussions on this point when the highways scheme was being framed and the present system was evolved. He had come to the conclusion,.that money of this description could best be, spent by a non-political board. ■ Local bodies throughout the country would generally agree that the Highways Board, system had been successful. Mr. Holland, Leader of the Labour party, declared that no change could be made except by legislation, and it would be advisable to discuss it on the Public Works Statement. It was evident that at present the discussion was out of order. Control by Audit. The Hon. E. A. Rapsom, Minister of Public Works, denied that there was loss of control over the funds of the Highways Board. Its expenditure was scrutinised by the Auditor-General, who reported to Parliament. There had been no serious amendment of the Highways Act since it w«s passed in 1922, and he believed that, generally speaking, there was satisfaction with the board's" administration. Mr. Wilkinson (Egmont) declared that there was a growing feeling in New Zealand that public servants were getting too much power. Did they submit accounts to the Minister, and could Parliament see those accounts? If not, it was a vicious principle to leave the expenditure of millions to uncontrolled officials. Mr. A. Hamilton (Wallace) argued thati the million really belonged to motorists. It went into the Consolidated Fund earmarked for expenditure on roads. Provision might have been made in the first place for this contribution from motorists to go direct into the highways funds. It need not have, come through Parliament at all. Mr. Ransom said it was quite apparent that some new members were not acquainted with the true position. There had been very few complaints from districts dissatisfied with the allocation of highway funds.

Glorious Fight Ahead,

Hon. Downie Stewart pointed out that it was only on condition that the Consolidated Fund should only be a channel of collection that motorists agreed to taxation. If members demanded the right to appropriate these revenues, they had ahead of them a glorious fight with motorists. It would mean reconstruction of tlie whole system of road finance based on the Main Highways Act, the motor spirits, tyre duty, and Motor Vehicles Act. * * Mr. Wilkinson suggested that there seemed to be an unholy combination between the two main parties, and he would like the Leader of the Opposition to explain why he did not wish, to have the matter discussed. Mr. Coates: This is not the time to discuss it. Mr. Wilkinson added that motorists seemed to have made some stipulations before they submitted to taxation, but he never heard of farmers being allowed to make conditions before they paid taxes. Mr. Dickie (Patea) pointed out that county councils, who received subsidies from the Highways Board, kept a very keen eye on its expenditure: The hour of adjournment was nearly reached when Mr. Coates and Mr. Holland urged that the matter be put to the vote, as the estimates were being delayed. Their advice was taken,. and Ml*. Wilkinson's amendment was defeated by 57 votes to 12.