The Timaru Herald. WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1934. AUSTRALIA’S FINANCE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19860, 25 July 1934, Page 8

The Timaru Herald. WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1934. AUSTRALIA’S FINANCE.

One of the most perplexing problems confronting the treasury of the Federal Government of Australia, is the substantial deficits which are hampering the iinancial rehabilitation of each State within the Australian Commonwealth. The cable messages this morning report that as a result of the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, the Federal Ministry has decided to make provision in the Budget for the payment this iinancial year of grants to the smaller States of (lie following amounts: £ South Autralia 1,400,000 Western Australia 600,000 Tasmania 400,000 Obviously the strain upon the Federal revenues and the efforts made to fulfil an obligation under the reconstruction plan to balance the budgets of the States has substantially influenced the financial policy of the Australian Commonwealth. Moreover, the determination of the Federal Cabinet to assist in stabilising the finances of the States has given prominence to the financial relationship of Commonwealth and States. At the end of the last year of the three years period the Commonwealth Government has a surplus of £1,500,000 after paying substantial subsidies to rural production, making accumulated surplus of about £6,000,000. The State Governments, whose retrenchments were much more severe than those of the Commonwealth, have an agregate deficit of £7,400,000, but it is to he reduced to £5,850,000. The weakness of the financial clauses of the Commonwealth Constitution have been realised for many years. The Commonwealth now has command of the taxation and revenue field, and the States are comparatively impoverished, although with a fair division the total revenue receipts would be ample for all. The Commonwealth Government acknowledged its favoured position in June by making the States a gift of £2,000,000 to be divided amongst them on a population basis. The money will be applied mainly to the estimated State deficits of 191)4-35 (the financial year closes with June), find the Commonwealth Bank will provide about 5J millions for that purpose on the security of Commonwealth Treasury Bills bearing per cent. A Royal Commission is inquiring into the financial arrangements between Commonwealth and States, and it is hoped that it will be able to recommend an acceptable arrangement. Details of the deficits estimated by the States for 1934-35, and a comparison with the present financial year, are as follow:

lUtdlb . • • « • . LO,O xu,OOu 4- • Although State deficits have attained substantial dimensions, it is worthy of note that the Governments of the Australian States have made almost heroic efforts to do everything possible to keep the credit of the country on a high plane. Contributions to sinking funds for the liquidation of both Commonwealth and State loans iiave been maintained with strict regularity. Clad the State Governments suspended these payments their Budgets would have been balanced, for the sinking funds claim annually between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000. The Federal Cabinet, on its part, however, has embarked upon such a sound policy in relation to loan conversion that substantial relief has been given the taxpayer by saving in interest. Before 1930 Australia borrowed abroad at the rate of £30,000,000 a year. Now the Commonwealth is financing herself. She has converted Australian loans overseas at a saving of interest amounting to £2,500,000 a year and expects to convert in 1934-35 at least another £60,000,000 of her stock held in Britain at a saving in interest of about 1-J- per cent. It is not surprising then that the Federal Prime Minister, who delivered the Commonwealth budget yesterday, should have spoken with pride of the achievement of Australia’s wonderful effort to stabilise the country’s finances. Unusually difficult conditions have been confronted by the Australian people and overcome; so much so that to-day, the credit of the Commonwealth stands high in the financial centres of the world. CONTROL OF ROAD TRAFFIC Considerable changes in the existing law and procedure for the control of road traffic are involved in the important alterations in the Motor Vehicles Act of 1924 which the Transport Department lias submitted to the Government for consideration. Among other things, the law relating to dangerous driving is tightened up, bigger penalties are prescribed for “hit-and-run” drivers, and special provision is included for the stricter control of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. It is suggested also that concessions should be made in respect of the license fees payable on certain classes of vehicles, and the amendments also make it incumbent upon local

transport authorities to pay license fees on trolly-buses. The Government, on its part, has decided, in view of the far-reach-ing nature of the new proposals, to give all interested sections of the community every opportunity of examining the proposed alterations before finally preparing legislation for submission to Parliament this session. The Commissioner of Transport in a foreword suggests that “the time has arrived when the regulation of road traffic should be covered by a universal set of regulations with provisions to enable local authorities to have special circumstances provided for where justified.” Doubtless every law-abiding motorist will naturally show some interest in the question of speed restrictions. Every motorist knows, of course, the menace that reposes in the users of the roads who are more or less speed maniacs. It is for this reason that the Transport Department regards the moment as opportune for a pronouncement which will indicate the policy the Department intends to advocate in respect to the highly controversial question of speed limits. In its explanatory statement the Department says:

"In the first place, it may be mentioned that there are no specific speed limits laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924, but Section 36 (n) empowers the Governor-General in Council by regulation to fix, for the better preservation of the roads and streets or for the safety of the public, the maximum speed of motor vehicles. Regulations are now in force under this latter provision fixing a speed limfi of 40 miles an hour over non-dustless roads, and setting forth a table of lesser speeds, the exceeding of which throws the onus on the driver to prove that he was not driving to the common danger. "The two most important provisions of the table of speeds are what are commonly known as the prima facie speed limits of 35 miles an hour on rural roads and 25 miles an hour in boroughs and town districts. In addition to the Government regulations mentioned, there are numerous —probably hundreds—of local body by-laws fixing speed limits from 10 miles an hour upward.

It is not an easy matter to define the speed at which motorists can use the roads with safety. The transport control authorities suggest, however, that discipline is highly essential in order to secure a measure of safety and a national policy on the question of speeds could he laid down somewhat along the following lines; (a) Dustless rural roads; driving to the common danger; (b) boroughs and townships; statutory speed limit of 30 miles an hour; (c) power to make regulations or bylaws to meet exceptional circumstances. In most cases prescribed signposts would be essential. A general speed limit of 30 miles an hour is proposed for motorcars drawing trailers.” It is suggested that the adoption of a clearly-defined national policy, providing for the safety on the roads would relieve the motorists of a considerable measure of responsibility; moreover, definition of speed on the lines indicated would, it is believed, entirely relieve the motorist of the onus of proof imposed upon him under the existing regulations, and instead of having to show that he was not driving to the common danger, the onus would rest upon the prosecuting authority to prove that he was:

The question has been raised on more than one occasion as to whether it is reasonable to throw the onus of proof upon a motorist (to prove that if he exceeded a certain speed he was not driving to the common danger) and it has been contended that the principle of the onus of proof should not apply in cases of the kind, as the offender would seldom, if ever, be aware of all the circumstances surrounding the occasion to enable him to discharge the onus of proof.

Provisions are provided for the better control of pedestrian traffic, a clearer definition of the off-side rule and much more stricter control of the cyclingtraffic. The Transport Department has devoted considerable thought to the proposals that iiave been submitted to the Government for legislative endorsement, and their efforts are worthy of commendation. The community is confronted almost daily with the toll in human life and suffering the motor moloch is taking, and no really rational motorist would show any opposition whatever to the enforcement of measures that would lessen the growing death-roll on the roads. Hence if the plan presented for Government consideration is found to be sound and practicable, it is hoped the Government will tackle this vital matter with the courage born of the knowledge of the daily increasing toll in human life and suffering that modern motor traffic makes upon the community.

1933-34 1934-35 Financed. Estimated. # £ £ New South Wales 3,790,000 3,500,000 Victoria .. .. 825,000 900,000 Queensland .. . 1,685.000 1,280,000 South Australia . 1,110,000 900,000 West Australia 790,000 750,000 Tasmania .. .. 50,000 Totals .. .. . £8,340,000 £7,400,000