HIGHWAYS RAID

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 750, 24 August 1929, Page 6

HIGHWAYS RAID

MOTORISTS’ RIGHTS OVERRIDDEN MEMBER’S STRONG PROTEST (THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter) PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Friday. A strong protest against the action of the Government in “raiding” the highways funds was entered by Mr. A. E. Ansell (Chalmers) in the House of Representatives today. The motorists of New Zealand, he said, had asked for taxation, and had expressed willingness to contribute a fair share as they wanted good roads, and it would be an unjust burden for the county councils and other local bodies if motorists did ont contribute. A definite obligation was on the Government to honour the agreement arrived at between county authorities and motorists. A Voice: The Highways Board is a nuisance. Mr. Ansell: I consider the Highways Board has performed a splendid .-.ervice to New Zealand. (Hear, hear.) He added that a search of Hansard revealed no opposition to the proposals when the original legislation was before Parliament. The sum of £ 200,000 to be transferred from the Public Works Fund to the Main Highways Board Construction Fund, which was now to be withdrawn, had been considered the least that was fair. When the Act came into operation there were 6,000 miles of road. Today this had been increased to 10,000 miles. It was therefore quite a fair argument that, in view of that in- ' tease, the sum should be increased instead of being cancelled. In addition to the ordinary and special motor taxation, motorists last

I year paid, through the Customs, ap- | proximately £1,200,000. One would think the Public Works vote would be more buoyant because of tfie large amounts paid in by the motorists. Referring to the secondary roads that had been taken over, Mr. Ansell said that the Government had been relieved of expenditure of at. least £50,000 a year. Last year motorists contributed £220,000 toward unemployment. There was a feeling among motorists that it was hardly a fair thing to put the burden on them. It was recognised that a difficulty existed, and generally they were prepared to allow the funds to be applied for that purpose. The Government had provided £IOO,OOO for subsidising unemployment relief works in cities. That was a good principle, but when it came to contributions made by the motorists, the principle was reversed, and money was taken away. Another argument for continuation of the grant was that large sums had been spent in the South Island on Government roads and bridges through the Highways Board. In regard to expenditure on bridges, many thousands of pounds had been saved to the country. “I have made inquiries,” said Mr. Ansell, "but I cannot find any place in the world where the State has absolutely repudiated its responsibility for its main highways. The Government is doing the wrong thing in disregarding its responsibility in connection with expenditure necessary for the construction and maintenance of the main roads of this country. The Act made it clear, Mr. Ansell contended, that the money had to be paid, yet the Government said that there was no reason that it should be. There was legal claim for it. Indisputably there was a moral claim. The Prime Minister had said that the resources of the Main Highways’ Revenue Fund were more than ample to meet the current requirements, but he w r ould like Sir Joseph Ward to indicate the fount of that information, since the Minister of Public Works had said that there was not sufficient money in the fund. The Prime Minister took away £200,000 and £35,000, and also proposed to charge interest on construction money on which he claimed no interest was being paid.