“DICTATORIAL ATTITUDE”

Taranaki Daily News, 13 January 1932, Page 9

“DICTATORIAL ATTITUDE”

ACTION OF HIGHWAYS BOARD

CRITICISM BY EGMONT COUNTY. BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY — —- STRONG PROTEST AT DELAY. The action of the Main Highways Board In declining to authorise the construction of the Punehu bridge, for which the council had loan money in hand, after it had been decided some time ago by the district council to recommend that a •mall sum towards the subsidy be placed on the estimates as an indication that the construction could be proceeded with this year and plans had accordingly been prepared, was strongly criticised at the meeting of the Egmont County Council yesterday, members characterising the board’s attitude as dictatorial. The discussion started when in reply to Cr. J. S. Tosland the engineer stated that subject to a small alteration his plans for the bridge had been approved. He had, however, received a letter from Mr. P. Keller, Highways Board’s representative, advising that the board was not prepared to authorise the council to proceed with the construction of the bridge in anticipation of subsidy being available cither next year or at a later date. The financial position was such that the board was not prepared to enter into any commitments. The chairman, Cr. W. C. Green, tookstrong exception to the letter. He commented on the “peculiar spirit” in which the board had dealt with the matter. He pointed out that when the district council had at his request agreed to recommend that a small sum be placed on the estimates for the bridge he had made it clear that they would only be asked to honour the agreement to provide a subsidy when the money was available. Now when the plans were prepared and approved they received notice that the work could not be proceeded with, lhe plan had originally been sent back for a small alteration, but it appeared now as though- that plan might have been approved in the first place but the board did not like to tell them they would not agree to the work being started. “RUNNING THE SHOW.” It appeared that the Highways Board was “running the show,” and the sooner the councillors made their voices heard the better, said Cr. Green. He held that if the plans were wrong in the first place they were wrong in the second place also. The board had only been asked to approve of the plans as it had been made clear that the council had the money available to expend on the work, which would help to relieve unemployment. The Minister was always asking local bodies what they were prepared to do to assist and that they should share the responsibility. Yet when they were prepared to find work and had the money available the Main Highways Board would not approve of them doing it. He did not think the council should sit down and allow the

money to remain idle —indeed, they were ' losing money on it as it was invested at a lower rate than they paid for it, while the bridges remained untouched. They should draw the attention of the Minister to the matter.

“It seems to me,” Cr. Green added,

“that the Highways Board members are acting as real dictators on the question.” They had been up against the council previously and had tied it up for years on the matter of road construction, though the council had already raised the loan money. Finally the board had given the necessary permission for the work to be proceeded with, and it was now adopting the same attitude regarding the bridges. The chairman added that it had been made clear at the meeting of the district council when a small sum was placed on the estimates bo as to recognise the necessity for the construction of the bridge that the council did not want the money for the subsidy at once. Ratepayers were being taxed 3d m the £1 on their incomes to provide work, and at the same time the council had work that was waiting to be done. Or. Toeland agreed with the chairman. He held that the action showed lack of foresight on the part of the Highways Board. If such were the views of members they were not fit to sit on the board. If the people with money available were not permitted to expend it, how did they expect to absorb the unemployed? Surely the council was not expected to go down on its knees and ask to be permitted to carry out work that would absorb labour! He thought they should make their protest to the Ministers of Public Works and of Labour. Cr. Shepherd: It’s the same Minister! The chairman objected to the “this year, next year or never” attitude adopted in the letter. ASSURANCE REQUIRED. Cr. Collins said he was anxious that the council should push on with the construction of the two bridges and to assist in eliminating some of the unemployment, but at the same time he would like some definite assurance that the subsidy would be payable at some futuredate. There was the danger that they might get permission to expend their money on the construction of the bridge and that later the subsidy principle might be abolished or the Highways Board go out of existence. He recognised that they were losing money at present on the bridge loan investment and that the bridge should be proceeded with, but they were meeting rebuffs where they should receive assistance. He thought they should vigorously renew their application. The chairman pointed out that when the ratepayers authorised the council to raise the bridge loan there was no question of any subsidy being paid. Had the Highways Board not been set up there would have been no subsidy and the council would still have had to build the bridges, though possibly they might not have built them up to the standard laid down by the Highways Board. Under the provisions of the loan the bridges had to be built, but fortunately as it happened for the ratepayers, no definite period was fixed. H Cr. Collins: “If there had been no subsidy there would be no dictation.” On the motion of Crs. Tosland and Collins it was resolved to place the matter before the Minister of Public Works and Labour and Mr. C. A. 'Wilkinson, M.P., and failing any satisfactory reply the chairman would wait on the Minister at Wellington.