CONTROL OF MAIN HIGHWAYS

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 10, 7 October 1936, Page 9

CONTROL OF MAIN HIGHWAYS

Effect on Counties MINISTER REPLIES TO ALLEGATION The allegation of the Counties’ Association that the Main Highways Amendment Bill, which was introduced last week, constituted a violent attack on the county system of local government was denied by the Minister of Public Works, Hon. R. Semple, in a statement issued last evening. The Minister said that one of the main points of the Bill, which the association did not fully ap- . preciate, was the provision for a measure of relief to local authorities estimated to be in the vicinity of £BO,OOO in maintenance alone and probably the equivalent of a further £40,000 a year in construction. .

“The Bill does not in any sense constitute a violent attack on the county system of local government,” said Mr. Semple, “and if, in the opinion of the Counties’ Association, there is to be centralised bureaucratic control, it would appear that the association considers the Main Highways Board a bureaucratic body. It is known, however, that the association has never bad cause to regard the board in that light. There may be a difference of opinion as to the wisdom of having State-con-trolled arterial roads, .but transport and traffic conditions, as well as reading requirements, have changed considerably even since the main highways legislation was first introduced about 14 years ago. There is not much room for argument against having one controlling authority for the main arterial reading system of the Dominion, and as a matter of fact the mileage tentatively proposed 10'1)0 taken over—4o per cent. —is already controlled direct-I ly by the Main Highways Board.” I It was interesting to know, the Minister added, that within a short time of the announcement of a proposed State highways system for New Zealand the British Minister of Transport had introduced a similar scheme. The arterial roads of the Dominion carried 60 per cent, of the traffic; and it would be reasonable to expect county councils to welcome relief rather than to criticise the means by which it was to be given. I Relief to Local Bodies.

“Although the extent of the relief to local bodies may not be as much as the Government would like to give.” continued Mr. .Semple, “it is at least a commencement, and the. question of loan liability does not really enter into the matter at this stage. The Bill is not designed comprehensively to re-

view and readjust reading finance as a whole, as its principal objective is to place the arterial highways under a form of control which will be in the best interests of the country. If the Bill is brought into effect, there is no reason why counties should lose their interest iu a particular portion of the area they control simply because the main road of the county is administered by a national authority. There is glaring evidence throughout the country that some counties hardly know a main arterial road exists, and their lack of interest in the 'improvement and maintenance of arterial sections has not displayed very much concern for a matter which is now represented to be of vital importance. “Although such a view may not be acceptable to the Counties’'Association, it is the policy of the Government that the elected representatives of the people should accept direct responsibility for the control and expenditure of publie money'. In accordance with' this policy, the constructional activities of the Main Highways Board will hi future be subject to review by the Minister who, in turn, is answerable to Parliament and the people.’’ Amalgamation Not Affected. 'The Minister added that the provisions of the main highways legislation did not in any way conflict with the policy of the Minister of Internal Affairs regarding local government amalgamation, and there was nothing in the Bill which would hinder or retard the amalgamation of local authorities. Since the first announcement some months ago of the Government's intention to introduce a State system of highways control, the proposal had been warmly commended by many public bodies in New Zealand, including local authorities affected by the Bill. The only regret actually expressed bad been that loan liabilities were; not being taken over by the Government, but that was a mailer I hat. might receive consideration with a view to improvements being effected if possible.

I here were eases. Mr. Semple said, where local authorities had raled themselves for a period to meet their reading obligations without borrowing, and it would be manifestly unfair lo relieve a local authority which had borrowed while doing nothing to help one which had made sacrifices. Although the Counties’ Association sought to make a strong case against the Bill, it would apjicar from communications received from individual sources that the views advanced by the association's represeu tatives were not shared by the majority of the local road-controlling authorities.