Opposition To Roads Bill

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30886, 20 October 1965, Page 11

Opposition To Roads Bill

If the National Roads Amendment Bill now before Parliament, meant that £lm had to be handed back to the Government by the National Roads Board, it could not be justified, said Cr. E. C. Britnell at a meeting of the Paparua County Council.

He was commenting on an Opposition claim that the Bill, if passed, would mean that the board would have to return £lm until evidence was produced that it was needed by the board. “Not long ago, we lost several thousand pounds by a reduction in the plant hire rates on which we can claim a National Roads Board subsidy,” said Cr. Britnell. “Then, under the Transport Amendment Bill, we would lose several thousands more in lost concessions.

“I read with amazement that the board might have to hand £lm back to the Government —as if we and other local bodies had nothing to spend it on.” Cr. J. U. Barclay said that it might be that if the board did not pay into the Consolidated Fund its operations could not be overseen by Parliament. He was sure every local body could use any spare money the board had.

“We should ask the Counties’ Association to seek an increase in the present National Roads Board subsidy,” said Cr. Barclay. “The board could well be more generous. The reason why we have to improve main routes is because of the travellers. “They are the reason why we are in the unfortunate position of having to provide for more limited access roads than any other area of Christchurch. It’s the Saturday and Sunday traffic. We

should go for more generous grants towards the cost of these roads.”

Cr. Barclay pointed out that it was reported by the Minister of Works (Mr Allen) that the board did not want the money. If that were so, questions should be asked of the two counties’ members of the board.

On his motion, the council decided to tell the Counties’ Association that it was opposed to the unanimous decision of the National Roads Board to give away £lm of reading funds.