NATIONAL ROADS FUND

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27402, 15 July 1954, Page 12

NATIONAL ROADS FUND

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S CRITICISM CREATION OF SEPARATE ACCOUNT CONDEMNED (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, July 14. The delegation to a special body outside Parliament, such as the National Roads Board, of the right to spend public money, especially where funds were collected as ordinary taxation, seriously weakened the constitutional control of expenditure by Parliament, said the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral (Mr C. J. Atkin) in his annual report, presented to Parliament today.

He said legislation was not necessary for the opening of a separate book account called the National Roads Fund. The setting aside of special reventies for special expenditure was not in the best interests of public accounting. Ample authority existed in the Public Revenues Act to open such accounts as might be necessary to make better provision for accounting for moneys in the Public Account, said Mr Atkin. The trend over a long period in New Zealand had been to dispense with separate accounts, with a view to producing a simpler Financial Statement.

The National Expenditure Adjustment Commission of 1932 had recommended the closing of many separate accounts, Mr Atkin said. Steady progress had been made, including the closing of the old Main Highways Account in 1947, and as late as last year the merging of the War Emergency Account with the Defence Fund. The present move was thus a retrograde step towards the position which existed before 1932.

The total revenue of the new fund was estimated at £41.000.000 a year and its expenditure was delegated to a body outside Parliament, he said. The opening of a separate cash account in the books of the Treasury Department, and the setting aside from it of a particular portion of the country’s taxation revenue did not in itself provide any more money for the roads.

The same object could have been achieved by Parliament voting in the ordinary way such an additional amount as was necessary, Mr Atkin said.

RATING FOR FIRE SERVICES MINISTER REPLIES TO MR MATHISON 'From Our Parliamentary Reporter) . WELLINGTON, July 14. Rating for fire services was outlined by the Acting Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr K. J. Holyoake) in the House of Representatives todav when replying to a question asked Ly Mr J. Mathison (Opposition, Avon). The provision in the Fire Services Act for separate rates for fire services to be levied only on the value of buildings was amended last year because of serious difficulties, said the Minister. For example, where rating for * fire services was on buildings only, a large modern concrete building with practically no fire risk would attract very high rates. Where the owner of a building installed an expensive sprinkler system, then, although the fire risk was reduced materially, higher fire-protection rates became payable, because the building had increased in value. The preparation of a special valuation roll for the few local authorities requiring valuations of buildings would be difficult and costly. When the amendment was made last year it was felt that the only satisfactory solution was to regard the fire-pro-tection service as a normal local body function, the cost of which should be met in the same manner as other local seiyices, such as the provision of libraries, water supply, and sewerage. That principle had been accepted by many local bodies, which had never levied a separate fire protection rate but had paid for the cost of fire services from general rates. Mr Holyoake said that if difficulties arose under the new provision, no doubt local body associations would take up the matter with the Government.