AUCKLAND POWER BOARD.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 304, 22 December 1921, Page 9

AUCKLAND POWER BOARD.

FRANCHISE PROPOSAL OPPOSED. BILL PASSED WITH SLIGHT AMENDMENTS. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. In the House of Representatives tonight a strong protest was made by Mr. M. .1. Savage against clause 5 of the Auckland Electric Power Board Bill when Mr. j. 8. Dickson moved its second reading. The clause in question concerns the election of the board, and restricts the franchise in the election of the twelve members to "all ratepayers.'' Mr. Savage criticised this as a retrograde step, and quite in opposition to the original Act of 1918. With the one exception of the Mannkau County Council all of the local bodies concerned had the same franchise nnder the Municipal Corporations Act. Mr. T. W. Rhodes said he had been inclined at the outset to view the matter in the same light as Mr. Savage, but since he had found that a conference of the whole of the bodies represented they had unanimously agreed to the proposal. If the proposed franchise suited the people in the area, as it apparently did according to the action of their representatives, the bill should be allowed to proceed. Mr. P. Fraser sunoorted Mr. Ravage's view, emphasising that the original Act providing for the establishment of a Power Board stated that the Board should be elected by the electors generally. The bill was read a second time. In committee Mr. Fraser asked what was the object of limiting the franchise and departing from the sound principle of the Electric Power Board Act of 1918. Mr. J. S. Dickson explained that the majority of the electors were in the city and suburbs, and outside local bodies would only come into the scheme on the understanding that the franchise would bo limited. They feared lest they would not get proper representation on the Board with a wider franchise. Mr. Fraser retorted that in any case Auckland city would swamp outside bodies, as far as voting strength was concerned. Mr. T. M. Wilford and Mr. T. K. Sidey said the proposal was altogether opposed to the principles of Liberalism, and they could not possibly support it. Mr. V. Potter stressed the point that all the representatives of the local bodies edncerned had ratified the proposal. Agreement had only been come to after many months' deliberation. Mr. R. McCallilm further opposed the clause, but Mr. W. D. Lysnar made the point that this wan a matter in which Parliamentary interference was ununnecessary. Mr. R. McCallum: You would do away with Parliament altogether. Mr. Lysnar: Tn this case, yes. Mr. Savage, continuing his protest, said if clause ii was submitted to the people of Auckland they would turn it down with a thud. Though the representatives had approved of it people knew nothing about it. When the clause was reached Mr. Wilford moved that sub-clause 2, "the members of the Board shall be elected by all the ratepayers of this district," be struck out. On a division being taken the motion was defeated by 30 votes to 18. The remaining clauses passed without amendment. A new clause was inserted on the motion of Mr. Dickson empowering the Auckland Harbour Board to lease to the Power Board without competition two sections adjoining the power station site for extension of the power house. A new clause was inserted on the motion of Mr. Hudson imposing a maximum of one shilling per unit for lighting and sixpence for power in charges. The Board will be empowered to make these reducible to Od and 4?-d for prompt payment. -