NATIONAL ROADS BILL

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27638, 20 April 1955, Page 14

NATIONAL ROADS BILL

FIRST READING GIVEN OPPOSITION ALLEGES LACK OF FRANKNESS (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, April 19. The National Roads Amendment Bill was read a first time in the House of Representatives today after another discussion on its introductory stage about the implications of the measure. A Governor-General’s message containing a draft of the bill was received late on Friday afternoon, but as a result of protests by the Opposition the proceedings were interrupted by the week-end adjournment. “In you go, boots and all,” called Mr B. V. Cooksley (Government, Wairarapa) to the Opposition when the House went into committee to continue consideration of the Governor-Gen-eral’s message. Mr C. F. Skinner (Opposition, Buller) said that on Friday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nash) had asked whether there was dny alteration in principle involved in the bill, and the Minister of Works (Mr W. S. Goosman) had not given any definite information in his reply. The Minister had withheld the information, he said. Mr Goosman: I did not withhold any information.

Mr Skinner said that Ahe Minister had not been frank, and had not helped by the attitude he had adopted. Mr Goosman said that the original legislation stated that the chairman of the National Roads Board was to be an officer of the Ministry of Works, but the bill stated that one of the members of the board was to be chairman. It did not alter any control or principle It was intended to appoint him chairman.

Mr Nash: Does that not make for political control? Mr Goosman said the bill did not bring about any more political control. It just happened that the Minister would be chairman. The Government would appoint the chairman, not the board itself. Mr J. Mathison (Opposition, Avon) asked whether it would not be reasonable to allow the board to appoint its

The Chairman of Committees (Mr C. G. E. Harker (Hawke’s Bay) said that members were raising arguments that should be used in a second reading debate. The introduction of a Gov-ernor-General’s message could not be used to raise matters of principle. The appropriateness or otherwise of the appointment of chairman could be dealt with elsewhere, but not on the introduction of the bill. The bill was read a first time.