SUBSIDY ON BY-ROADS

Taranaki Daily News, 2 May 1933, Page 5

SUBSIDY ON BY-ROADS

SHARE OF HIGHWAYS FUNDS THE QUESTION OF DERATING. TARANAKI COUNCIL DISCUSSION. A strong protest at the alleged apathy of the executives of the New Zealand Counties Associations and New Zealand Farmers’ Union relative to the provision of a subsidy from petrol tax to relieve farmers of a portion of . the burden of rates was. made by Cr. Thomas at the meeting of the Taranaki County Council yesterday. Cr. Thomas asked the chairman what action had been taken in connection with the council’s resolution asking that 12J per cent, of the petrol tax be allocated for the maintenance of by-roads to relieve farmers of a portion of the burden of rates. He asked whether a deputation from the New Zealand Counties’ Association had waited on the Government. The chairman (Cr. J. S. Connett) said the resolution had been placed before the Taranaki Local Bodies Association, which had unanimously endorsed it and .forwarded it to the Minister of Finance and the New Zealand Counties’ Association executive, which had not yet moved. Cr. Thomas said that as far as he was concerned he would oppose any further contribution being made to the New Zealand Counties’ Association. He had noticed in a report of the Farmers’ Union executive that Mr. W. J. Polson, M.P., the Dominion president, had opposed the subsidy on rates to local bodies. Some time ago, according to a Press report, when speaking in the Stratford district, Mr. Polson said he was glad that the Counties’ Association had taken the matter up as he had been the first to move in that direction and had addressed various meetings in support of that policy. “Upon reading those remarks,” continued Cr. Thomas, “a thrill of happiness permeated my whole body and the nightmare of how to meet my rates gradually faded into the misty past.” If the Press reports of Mr. Polson’s attitude were correct, which in view of his previously reported statements he could not believe, Cr. Thomas said “the sooner farmers provided themselves with gas masks the better.” Touching on the question in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister

had said that the Government was considering a 25 per cent, subsidy on rates, but as Mr. Coates had just taken over the portfolio of finance he would want time to investigate the position, and he •was therefore unable to make any definite statement just then. That, Cr. Thomas alleged, proved that the Government had given the matter considerable thought and had-tentatively accepted 25 per. cent, as being fair. All knew now that the Government had decided against making any subsidy on rates, and he held that the' attitude of the executive of the Farmers’ Union had assisted in that decision. What attitude the Counties’ Association’s executive had taken up was not known at present, but it was to be hoped it at least would be true to those whom it represented. Farmers in asking for a subsidy of 25 per cent, on rates were not asking for alms but were simply asking for reimbursement of revenue derived from motor taxation in wearing out their side roads. He held that the £500,000 which the Government had taken from the highways fund really belonged to side roads and therefore was taken directly out of the farmers’ pockets. Before the Government raided the highways funds the whole of that money was expended on main and secondary roads only. The automobile associations were unable to prevent the Government commandeering the for the simple reason that the revenue was not taken from the main roads, which they were chiefly interested in. Press reports had stated that the British Government had recently increased motor taxation, and notwithstanding the Budgetary deficit that revenue was allocated for reading purposes. Cr. Vickers said the by-roads had never had any of the revenue from petrol tax. Cr. Thomas said it would be agreed that the farmers were entitled to some of the revenue from the petrol to be used on the by-roads to compensate for the wear and tear. The chairman said there was a great deal of misconception over the matter. Cr. Thomas: There is no misconception on my part. “NO USE RUSHING FENCES.” Cr. Connett said there was no use rushing their fences over the matter. Those who had given it any thought knew that the rebate given last year had been taken from a surplus that was available from the highways fund, involving t n expenditure of £250,000. This year, ho\ ..ver, there was no surplus from that fund, he did not know of any other fund that was available for the purpose, so that unless the council was

able to show where the money was to come from there was no prospect of obtaining the rebate. The Government had taken £500,000 from the highways fund for the general revenue, holding, as all must recognise, that it was only right that the country’s requirements must come first. He recognised that the ratepayers were entitled, to some relief, but if the Government had not the money it could not give it. The resolution in question came from only one province—Taranaki —and there was a conflict of opinion, other districts asking up to 25 per cent. There was, however, the factor behind it all that whether they asked for 5 per cent, or 12J per cent, the Government had no funds available. The Highways Board had assisted the by-roads considerably in the past by agreeing to the declaration of additional secondary highways, which the board subsidised.

If the money were available all would agree that they were ’entitled to a share of the revenue for the by-roads, but at present the position was such that the Main Highways Board was unable .to carry out any new road construction work and could not even reconstruct a bridge, but was limited to . bedrock maintenance work until the Government got out of its present difficulties and made the money available for road expenditure again. The Government had taken the highways money for two years. As it looked as though there was a probability that it might be taken for all time a protest had been made. . Cr. Thomas: Not much of a noise, though. The chairman said the counties’ conference did not meet until July 1 but in any case nothing could be done this year as there was no money available. Cr. Thomas said the counties’ executive had practically shelved the matter. He held that the £500,000 the Government had taken from the highways fund was money that should have gone to the relief of the ratepayers. The chairman: That is a matter of opinion. Cr. Thomas said the ratepayers were labouring under a double tax for the upkeep of their by-roads. They had to pay a rate for their construction and maintenance and then were . taxed through petrol for using the roads. Cr. Vickers said that originally the petrol tax had been levied for building up the main highways to provide for the needs of the motor traffic, but unfortunately an attempt had been made to do in five years what should have taken 20 years. Now they had arrived at a point where as a matter of expedience the Government had to take over the highways revenue over and above that required for maintenance. Jt was a question of necessity. Cr. Vickers remarked ■ from all parts of the country there had been an agitation for derating of land, and there was a good deal of justice, in that demand. Unfortunatey they seemed to be at cross purposes, for while one section was agitating for derating they were trying to get some assistance from taxation that had been collected from them but which was not now available for distribution. Nor could they show where the money was to come for derating. He thought the time would come when there would be derating, and in fairness to the farmers it should not be far distant. However, it was a big question and at present it would be difficult to effect such a direct change of policy. He congratulated the chairman on his attitude in having as many by-roads as possible declared secondary highways, which would prove of some assistance until such time as they secured total derating.