LIMIT TO COUNTY SUBSIDIES

Southland Times, Issue 23544, 25 June 1938, Page 12

LIMIT TO COUNTY SUBSIDIES

SOUTHLAND COUNCIL’S COMPLAINT EFFECT ON PROGRAMME OF SEALING Representations that the limit of £2500 on subsidies to county councils should be abolished were made at the conference of Southland local body representatives with members of Parliament yesterday It was claimed that the Southland County Council was penalized to the extent of £6OOO or £7OOO a year and was prevented to this extent from extending the sealing of highways A memorandum by the county clerk (Mr H. C. Gimblett) stated:—“This council has prepared proposals for the sealing of several miles of highways adjacent to Invercargill and we find that it is impossible to do these proposed works from revenue. The question of capital works is bound up with subsidy on rates. Based on our last year’s collection, the subsidy payable to the Southland county is 1/4J in the £1 against 5/- in the £1 in the majority of the counties in New Zealand. This means that the farmer in Southland has his rates subsidized from motor taxation to the extent of 7 per cent, and in other counties the percentage of subsidy is 25 per cent, on rates paid. Most farmers today are motorists. The transporting of goods to and from farms is by motor and the farmer is contributing his fair quota to motor taxation, and this council feels that there is no valid reason why farmers in the Southland county should not participate to the same extent as the other farmers in New Zealand in the subsidy on rates. This council has given an undertaking to the Automobile Association that if additional subsidy is

paid, bringing the subsidy up to 5/- in the £l, then such additional amounts received each year will be expended on the reconstruction and sealing of highways in the Southland county. The extra cost to the Government to put all counties on the same basis of subsidy is estimated at £27,000 and of this amount, the Southland county would receive between £6OOO and £7OOO Converting the total subsidy received, namely, £2500, to a subsidy a mile of gravelled road, and comparing the subsidy with counties adjacent to Southland, shows the position to be:—Southland county, £1 3/8 a mile; Clutha, £3 10/- a mile; Bruce, £8 5/a mile; Tuapeka, £3 10/- a mile; Wallace, £1 9/6 a mile. Mr G. W. Whittingham said the question was an old one, but little progress was being made with it. It seemed unreasonable that the county’s subsidy should be so small. If the full amount was paid the council could undertake a great deal more sealing work.

Mr J. McNeill said the bigger counties were penalized and yet the Government claimed that it favoured amalgamation of small local bodies. The effect on the Southland county was serious. The Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. Adam Hamilton) said there was no reply to the justice of the claim. When the complaint was first raised it was difficult to find the finance required. Mr Whittingham said that if the Southland county was divided into four counties the subsidy would be £lO,OOO instead of £2500. The members of Parliament agreed to support the council’s claims.