MAIN HIGHWAYS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16832, 7 September 1922, Page 8

MAIN HIGHWAYS.

PROPOSALS DISCUSSED, PROGRESS LEAGUE’S CONFERENCE. A conference* of representatives of ! local bodies and motor associations con - vened by the Canterbury Progress League was held yesterday to discuss proposals for legislation dealing with main highways. There was an attend- | ance of about fifty delegates, Mr W. K. j M*Alpine, president of the league, oc- ; cupying the chair. The main portion \ of the meeting was devoted to an address on the highways legislation, from ; the counties’ viewpoint, by Mr A. K. Jull. of AYaipawa. president of the New Zealand Counties’ Association. The chairman explained the objects ! of the conference, and welcomed Mr | Jull, who. he said, had a real grasp of | the question. Mr M'Alpine suggested that resolutions passed at last year’s meeting should be taken as a basis of | discussion. In his opening remarks, Mr JuTL made some complimentary references ?o the Progress League. The association ; which they bad in Canterbury, he said, was one which should be copied in other parts of the Dominion. It was the most progressive Progress League they had in the country. It was filling a long felt want in the way of co-ordi- j nating the views of local authorities. Proceeding, .Mr Jull traced the sequence of events which had brought about the main highways discussion. i He recalled the aims of the proposals put forward by the Minister of Public ! W orks. These covered the idea of a ■ main arterial road running from the j Bluff to the North Cape on both coastes, with a section north of Gisborne and ) a strip south of Hokitika cut out. Hoads were to be maintained by the State, and all taxation received from ! levies on motor traffic was to be de- | voted to this purpose. No portion of j this taxation, however, was to be al- i lowed to those counties which were ! constructing and maintaining roads +o ports and railways to carry the pro 1 duce of the country. Therefore the people who were struggling to raise the j standard of road construction to cope with motor traction in their districts would still have to maintain these roads, while the levy on the motor traffic using these routes would go to wards the upkeep of roads in which, in many coses, the district had no interest whatever. Under the Minister’s scheme the controlling power was really in the < Public Works Department, which the j Counties’ Association felt was wrong in : principle. If the Minister thought ~hi> Department could make these roads better than the local authorities, why have local, bodies at all? The conference did not wish Government control. ! as they believed it would be prejudicial to the local government of the Do minion. Mr Jull explained the other proposals made in the original discussion. remarking that when the first Highways Bill was presented to Parliament. it did not get further than the committee stage. A conference between the Minister. Counties' Association and motor associations was hel l about two months ago in Wellington, after which certain proposals were formulated. The Minister had issued a memorandum stating that lie was stid convinced that the Bill of last session was the most effective for dealing with what was a difficult problem. THE COUNTIES' VIEW S. Mr Jull said that the executive of i the Counties’ Association had met in Wellington recently and formulated suggestions for transmission to the Minister. He read a circular issued by the association, as already published. They favoured the highways being dealt with by groups of counties, without the institution of a new Depart ment. which would be called the Main H'Vds Department, as a branch of the ! Public Works Department. They di 1 not want any more Departments if they j could help it. The groups of counties j j would decide the main traffic roads, while the standard of construction j could be dealt with by the Government j engineers. The Counties’ Association ' was also of opinion that loan moneys i should be made available for the work, otherwise the building pf the main traffic roads could only proceed at snail's pace. If boards were under poli tical control, counties would have the fear that they would not be receiving the same degree of attention that another part having more “pull” was receiving. Taxation, it was suggested, would be based on the registration in each island and the question of apportionment might well lie left to the groups oi counties. The question of North Island carts travelling in the South Island, and vice versa, he thrfight might well be treated as a negligible quantity. Mr Jull submitted that the proposals of the CouiVties’ Association were a practical and equitable basis of dealing with the construction of main roads in the North Island. MOTORING INTERESTS. Mr F. W. Johnston, former president of the Soifth Island Motor Union, dealt with the motorists’ point of view. He said it was their proposal that the amount of taxation should be dealt with on the basis of registration. They wanted to earmark for the South Island a fair proportion of the tax, for, after all. it was a class tax.' l They, too, were desirous of getting away from political pull. If there was one board of con trol. he was inclined to think political influence would creep in, and they knew this influence always pulled in one direction, the north. They should vote solidly for two boards, one for the North and one for the South. The only alternative was the guarantee that the groups of counties, as explained by Mr Jull, would be adopted ; but they did 1 not want to fall between two stools. I Further, the union did not want to see I a large registration fee. j Answering a question, Air Jull said ! that they had not gone into details of I the question of grouping. The present j aim was to establish the principle. Mr W. T. Lill, chairman of the Ashburton County Council, said that he-was opposed to one board for the whole of ! the Dominion. Air J. S. Hawkes asked if Mr Jull | was in favour of two separate methods j of motor taxation. He said that the tyre tax was one, and the Minister of Internal Affairs had proposed straight-out Pat. tax as well. The motorists were in favour of one tax. Air Jull said that the conference ha i ! merely affirmed the principle of motor j taxation. The question of collection i did not concern them directly, and they | had not come to any determination i upon it. CONFERENCE’S DECISION. j j Air G. M. Hall (Heathcote County) . j moved — “In the opinion of this conference j ! no legislation dealing with the subject of highways wiP be satisfactory to the

local governing bodies of Canterbury unless the following fundamental principles are embodied : (a) Failing the adoption of two Boards of Control, one for the North and one for the South Island, as previously proposed, counties ; should be grouped according to their geographical position and community of interest for the purpose of carrying out a main traffic road scheme. (b) Allocation of the revenue from the tyre and other tax to the two i islands in proportion to the numbers of the motor vehicles registered in the two islands. (c) The inclusion in the scheme of j all roads that are carrying or are ' likely to carry extensive traffic between centres of population or from one district to another. (d) Earmarking of the tax monev for interest and sinking fund on the capital cost of construction (c) hereof. and for the maintenance of such new constructed and reconstructed roads.” The motion was seconded by Mr G. ; Armstrong (Akaroa). Mr W. T. Lester (Mayor of Lyttel- ; ton) was of opinion that more detail i •diculd be available. Ho thought that I the proposed roads should have been sketched geograph ica 11 y. Mr F. Sisson (Waimairi County) said that he was not altogether in favour of grouping counties, as he thought the present bodies might well be given the money to spend. Mr .Tull urged that it was desirable tc submerge all local in dealing j with such a national question. The motion, on being put. was car- j ried unanimously, after which the meeting passed a hearty vote of thankto Mr Jull.