“MORE SPENDING ON ROADS THIS YEAR”

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30591, 6 November 1964, Page 1

“MORE SPENDING ON ROADS THIS YEAR”

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, November 5. In spite of the S2 million balance with which the National Roads Board will end the year at the Government’s behest, it should still have at least S2 million more to spend this year than last year, according to Government speakers in Parliament tonight.

During the committee stages of the National Roads Amendment Bill, the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) said the board had originally planned a balance of £600,000. The extra amount to be frozen would thus be £1.4 million.

The transfer of 2d a gallon petrol tax from the Consolidated Fund to the National Roads Fund would supply another £2.4 million. An extra £1 million would therefore be available

Mr W. H. Brown (Govt., Palmerston North) said general petrol tax revenue was this year yielding at least £1 million more than budgeted. The deputy-leader of the Opposition (Mr Watt), said he doubted whether local bodies would have agreed to a reduction in the percentages of revenue to which they were entitled in favour of a larger proportion to be spent at the discretion of the board, had they known of the Prime Minister’s plan for a bigger balance.

State highway works looked the likeliest target for a slowdown. The Minister of Works (Mr Allen), the chairman of the board, had already guaranteed that special assistance commitments to local bodies would not be modified. Most local bodies had already issued rate demands based on revenue to be matched by board subsidies. “The national roading system is such an important part of over-all development that we cannot afford to delay work. To stop works and restart them later will cost more in the long run,” said Mr Watt

“If local bodies are not able to spend their full proportion of revenue this year, they will not be able to carry it over for next year because by law any surpluses must go back into the pool.” To serve the best interests of the nation, it was necessary to relieve inflationary pressures, said Mr Holyoake. Mr Brown said there had

not been a dissentient voice on the board in deciding to meet the Government’s request. The money was not going to be held as a reserve. The deferment, as in 1961, would be for one year only. Then the motorists’ organisations were concerned that it would be a continuing process but the Prime Minister had assured them it would not, and as he had promised, the money was made available the next year. So it would be again.

Mr Allen said he hoped the county and municipal representation on the board would note the allegations that they had answered to the crack of the Government’s whip. The board had only been asked to review its plans with a view to deferring low-priority works. The board would have a clearer picture at its meeting later this month of petrol tax revenue, which promised to be buoyant, and would then be able to decide what each particular district should be asked to defer, said Mr Allen.

One roads district council had stated it had been cut £60,000, but what it had actually been asked to do was defer expenditure from a record income.

The board was cushioning the reduction in the percentage to counties over three years so that they would not in any one year receive less than in the pre-

vious year. The municipalities would have the same percentage, but their revenue would be higher because of the greater pool from which to draw. Not one local body had suffered a cut.

Mr Allen said any money not spent would go into a pool and could be paid out at the discretion of the board. When the board had a clearer picture of deferments it would, no doubt, be able to formulate a policy of reinstatements at its December meeting, when next year’s allocations were being determined.