Main Roads Could Be Nationalised

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 671, 24 May 1929, Page 6

Main Roads Could Be Nationalised

FARMERS’ OPINION WORKING BY TENDERS Intense discussion took p| a among delegates on a series of mits dealing with nationalisatl# of main roads, construction, 0” keep, and the question of offering works to contract tv! public tender. 'T’HE conference definitely suppo*,. 1 the public tender Principle"*; carrying out public works where*!, possible. A remit from Opotiki suggested u. the conference should recommend ty nationalisation of all main roads. *** Several speakers said that th e mit should be passed on principle ** Mr. A. E. Robinson said that th. remit had been passed time and agth, by conferences in Auckland andS the province. 01 RATE APPLICATION “It is simply a protest against m : application of rates on nations' roads,” Mr. Robinson said. "rn remit should be passed without fo, ther discussion." Mr. R. D. Duxfleld supported Robinson's view. Mr. E. L. Walker said that the r r.it should stand, when alteration! were suggested. It should be passion principle. The remit was carried. A remit from Waikato asked; a, That the conference is of opinion tt>the time is now opportune for the ationalisation of the main highway, tb) that constructional work on mak highways should be let to contract by public tender; and (o) that maintet. ance of main highways should be ogr. ried out by permanent staff under tie Main Highways Board. Clause (c) was lost. Mr. R. H. Feisst, speaking on tkf second section of the remit, nijnyyC advocated the principle embodied, ft was essential that constructional wort should be carried out In the most eS cient manner possible. ATTITUDE ON QUESTION It was consistent, he said, with tie attitude the union had taken up for some time in regard to public works Mr. A. W. Masters supported this view. Mr. B. McConaughie said that where there was no competition, the principle of the remit would fall short Care was needed regarding the proposal. Mr. A. W. King suggested that the word “main” .should be taken out of the section. Mr. F. Giles asked if the sectioß could be amended to say that constructional work should first be offered to contract by public tender. He thought this would be in keeping with the discussion. Mr. Feisst seconded the amendment Mr. C. C. Munro suggested an amendment should be made to ask that the work should be offered to contract by public tender where possible. This was carried. Mr. C. E. Macmillan, M.P., could not see much wrong with the remit as it stood. Clause A in the remit was carried, supporting the nationalisation of main highways principle. Replying on Clause B discussion, Mr. Feisst said that construction on main highways was essentially the principle in which they were concerned. The section, as suggested by Mr. Feisst, was carried. Mr. Feisst went on to speak on Clause C of the remit. ONLY ONE PLANT .Jr. Bruce Deunis supported a view by Mr. Munro that it would be difficult to control a big district with one plant. He opposed the remit. Mr. Robinson said It must be generally agreed that there were too many local bodies in New Zealand. He did not want to see a duplication of work throughout the country, and he asked the conference to discard the suggestion. The clause was lost. RELIEF FOR ACCESS ROADS Omokoroa's opinion that the everincreasing expenditure upon the main highways has resulted in the neglect and starvation of the access roads to baekblock settlers and that the Government be asked to grant relief, was spoken on by Mr. Macmillan. The remit was carried. In another remit Waikato suggested that public works, such as the construction of railways, roads and bridges, should be let by contract to public tender. Mr. Feisst moved and Mr. H. L. Watkins, announcing himself as a believer in contract by tenders, seconded. Mr. H. M. Cookson said that the principle of the remit had been emphasised in a former remit. Mr. Feisst said that the difference was that all public works should be let to tenders. The remit was carried.