AN ALLEGATION DENIED

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21907, 7 October 1936, Page 10

AN ALLEGATION DENIED

COUNTIES’ ATTITUDE TO HIGHWAYS BILL

HON. B. SEMPLE REPLIES TO ASSOCIATION

[Prom Our Parliamentary Reporter]

WELLINGTON, October 6.

The allegation of the Counties’ Association that the Main Highways Amendment BUI, which was introduced last week, constituted a violent attack on the county system of local government, was denied by the Minister for Public Works (the Hon. R. Semple) in an interview this evening. The Minister said that one of the main points of the bill which the association did not fully appreciate was the provision for a measure of relief to local authorities, estimated to reach about £BO,OOO in maintenance alone, and probably the equivalent of an additional £40,000 a year in construction.

“The bill does not in any sense constitute a violent attack on the county system of local government,” said Mr Semple, “and if, in the opinion of the Counties’ Association, there is to be centralised bureaucratic control, it would appear that the association considers the Main Highways Board a bureaucratic body. It is known, however, that the association has never had cause to regard the board in that light. There may be a difference of opinion about the wisdom of having State-controlled arterial roads, but transport and traffic conditions, as well as reading requirements, have changed considerably even since the main highways legislation was first introduced about 14 years ago. There is not much room for argument against having one controlling authority for the main ai’terial reading system of the Dominion, and as a matter of fact the mileage tentatively proposed to be taken over—4o per cent. —is already controlled directly by the Main Highways Board.” Similar Scheme in Britain It was interesting to know, the Minister said, that within a short time of the announcement of the proposed State highways system for New Zealand, the British Minister for Transport had introduced a similar scheme. The arterial roads of the Dominion carried 60 per cent, of the traffic, and it would be reasonable to expect county councils to welcome relief, rather than to criticise the means by which it was to be given. “Although the extent of the relief to local bodies may not be as much as the Government would like to give, it is at least a start, and loan liability does not really enter' into the matter at this stage,” the Minister said. “The bill is not - designed Comprehensively to review and readjust reading finance as a whole. Its principal objective is to place arterial highways under a form of control which will be in the best interests of the country. If the bill is brought into effect, there is no reason why the counties should lose their interest in the particular position of the area they control simply because the main road of the county is administered by a national authority. There is glaring evidence throughout the country that some counties hardly know a main arterial road exists, and their lack of interest in the improvement and maintenance of arterial sections has not displayed very much concern for a matter which is now represented to be of vital importance. “Although such a view may not be acceptable to the Counties’ Association,” added the Minister, “It is definitely the policy of the Government that the elected representatives of the people should accept direct responsibility for the control and expenditure of public money. In accordance with this policy, the constructional activities of the Main Highways Board will in future be subject to review by the Minister, who, in turn, is answerable to Parliament and the people.”

Local Body Amalgamation

The Minister saU that the provisions of the main highways legislation did not in any way conflict with the policy of the Minister for Internal Affairs over local government amalgamation, and there was nothing in the bill which would hinder or retard the amalgamation of local authorities. Since the first announcement some months ago of the Government’s intention to introduce a State system of highways control, the proposal had been warmly commended by many public bodies in New Zealand, including local authorities affected by the bill. The only regret actually expressed had been that loan liabilities were not being taken over by the Government; but that was a matter that might receive consideration with a view to improvements being effected, if possible. There were cases. Mr Semple added, where local authorities had rated themselves for a period to meet their reading obligations without borrowing, and it would be manifestly unfair to relieve a local aur ority which had borrowed, while doing nothing to help one which had made sacrifices. Although the Counties’ Association sought to make a strong case against the bill, it would appear from communications received from individual sources that the views advanced by the association’s representatives were not shared by a majority of roadcontrolling authorities.