Canterbury Counties’ Views On Roads Bill

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29010, 26 September 1959, Page 12

Canterbury Counties’ Views On Roads Bill

The tenor of two motions carried at a conference of No. 11 Ward of the Counties’ Association yesterday to discuss the National Roads Amendment Bill was different.

The first resolution was that the meeting advise the association that it took strong exception to the bill, believing it to be “unjust, iniquitous and far from being in the best interests of local government, of the roading system, and of the community as a whole.” While agreeing that some change in the highways system was warranted, the ward said the changes should be made only after those who suffered the effects of the bill had had every chance to study it and to make appropriate representations. If that opportunity was not given, the ward believed the Government would be acting in a “high-handed, dictatorial manner which could quite easily lead to the extinction of voluntary local government.” The second resolution to be forwarded to the Minister of Works (Mr Watt) was a request that the bill be referred to a committee of the House of Representatives to hear further evidence on the counties’ viewpoint. A sub-committee was set'up to prepare submissions in support of the request.

The meeting, which was convened by the Waimairi County Council, was attended by delegates from 20 counties. The ward chairman (Mr W. F. McArthur) presided. Mr H. J. Reynolds (Waimairi), said the main objections to the bill were that subsidies to counties could be withdrawn altogether and that administration difficulties would arise. Rates were adjusted for riding accounts on roading estimates. The National Roads Board could say the roads were in fair condition while roads 100 miles away were worse and it proposed to delete the work or cut down the subsidy. The bill provided for separate ledger accounts to be kept for each roading work, said Mr Reynolds. There might be a road in five sections, each to have a separate account. Reassurances by Minister The counties’ executive had been reassured by the Minister on the points raised by Mr Reynolds, said the chairman. The money would be allocated for the counties among the district roads councils we would approve of the works in toto, not in detail. The Minister wanted to get away from paper work for the Roads Board, which should be a supervisory body. Counties would merely hand in budgets for approval by the roads councils; the paper work for counties would be reduced and they would be given more control, according to the Minister.

of Works would take the amount. Although the chairman reported that the Municipal Association was pulling out of this war, the counties should fight the bill to the death knock. Some of the £5,000.000 was for maintenance of the main highways to be taken over by the Roads Board, replied Mr McArthur. Less M6ney The ward should reaffirm the principle that subsidy should be on the carriageway only, said Mr Clutha N. Mackenzie (Waipara). The fundamental issue was that the counties’ share of petrol and tyre taxes was being reduced. A strong case could be presented to show that counties could maintain main highways and save money. The chairman: I don’t want anybody to think we came away satisfied from the interview with the Minister. The proposals are still bad. We would sooner have the old set-up than the new one.

“It is obvious that no'bill has ever caused such consternation among counties and other local authorities as this one has done,” said Mr J. Mackenzie (Halswell). “To have created such consternation, there must be something behind somebody’s mind which should be worth hearing.”

It was most unusual that a Minister should give a verbal interpretation contrary to the written provisions of a bill, said Mr W. M. Dailey (Oxford). If the bill was carried, it would not be the Minister’s promises which would be remembered.

“There is no doubt about it that the subsidy for counties is going to be cut down,” said Mr McArthur. The reduction to 15s in the £ was big when main highways were taken into consideration. A sum of £2,000,000 was being set aside as a special fund to make up the amount so that no county would suffer any considerable loss of revenue from the Roads Board. “Some counties have been receiving too great a share and others not enough, and the £2,000.000 will bring about a more equitable distribution of the funds,” said Mr McArthur. County Representation

If a plebiscite were taken, motorists would say they wanted most an improvement of the country’s unsealed roads, said Mr McArthur. City motorists were not concerned about the upgrading of city roads. Mr Blakely proposed the motion to be submitted to the Counties’ Association’s executive and, after the danger of any political action was raised, Mr Reynolds moved that an approach be made to the Minister, to defer the bill until it was considered by a committee [Mr Nash’s Comment on Page 14]

The proposals had been fought tooth and nail by the two counties’ representatives on the Roads Board and they had been the only dissentients, said Mr McArthur. There was no need for the appointment to the board of a second municipal representative as all except the county members were city men.

The bill was a move back to the recommendations of the Sheat Reading Commission in 1953, based on a booklet by the present Commissioner of Works (Mr F. M. Hanson), said Mr McArthur. On paper, roads were to be placed under the Roads Board but the' Minister said actual experience would be that the counties would get away from the board. The Minister said the board would have nothing to do with the money except to allocate it to the road's councils—£4,ooo.ooo would be distributed to counties and £2,000,000 allocated to the special fund. Standards For Roads Was the setting of ' standards for all roads to be insisted on? asked Mr W. C. Miller (Wairewa). If so, work would be delayed a year. “The idea is that, if a county is not playing the game with the motorist.and not building a proper road, there is provision in the act to bring it to order to use reasonable road standards,’’ replied the chairman. Mr E. J. Stalker (Springs): Doesn’t that mean all works will have to be approved by the Ministry of Works? Mr McArthur: We are assured that that is not so. It was only right that what was intended should be written into the bill, said Mr A. J. Blakely (Kowai). The counties’ executive should not accept only the assurances from the Minister. The special fund of £2,000,000 would cause disruption among the counties, which would be fighting to get their share. Five million pounds was not going out in subsidies. Where was £3.000.000 going? His “fair idea” was that the Ministry