POWER BOARDS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 208, 3 September 1925, Page 12

POWER BOARDS.

A CONSOLIDATING MEASURE. ELECTION METHODS. THE FRANCHISE QUESTION. 'By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. In the House of Representatives to- j night the Prime Minister moved the second reading of the Electric Power j Boards Bill, which lie explained was! simply a consolidating measure brought ■ down at the request of several power i boards. The only new provision was j one dealing with the filling of casual' vacancies in boards which was omitted 1 in the original Act. Mr. E.A. Ransom (Pahiatua) said he] thought it would have been advisable j to make clear the responsibilities of, boards where their boundaries followed '■ the same roads, and in which eases at j present there wa3 some confusion re-1 garding the control of power lines. He I [urged a modification of the conditions giving qtialifieations for membership of power boards, so that, the services of j the best men might not be lost through j minor technicalities. j Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland AYcstl objected to clause -20, which he said restricted the election of power boards | to ratepayers. A public utilrtr of this character should be controlled on a wider franchise, since there was no | guarantee that under the proposed rate- j payers' franchise the charges for current j would not be raised., so as to press unduly on the general body. of consumers. The municipal .franchise at least should be used, but the proper one was the Parliamentary franchise. Sir John Luke (Wellington North) j said he could not see how complaint i would be levelled against the restricted i franchise for the election of boards | which were trading concerns quite apart from municipalities. Their operations were to be self-supporting and not become, a charge on the rates. Mr. J. A. Nash (Palmerston) advocated attention being given to the planting of trees suitable for use in the future for power transmission lines. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Christclmrch East) suggested that -transmission lines might in many cases be put underground, since the cost of hardwood poles must remain high and possibly increase. Mr. F. J. Rolleston (Timarii) pointed out that clause 20 ouly provided for special circumstances; otherwise the franchise remained as formerly. The Prime Minister said if by any mischance the system of election was to be amended the bill must be dropped. Tt, wan simply a consolidating measure. No boards had asked for any amendment of the franchise, and it wa s too early yet to see. whether an alteration was needed. The people in the districts were responsible for the rating provision, and were entitled to say under what system the boards should be I elected. I The bill was read a second time on | the voices. When the TTou c o was in eommrtteo r.p the bill the Leader of the Opposition. ' Mr. G. W. Forbes, "•- "-'•«'. ■ Ministpr if be proposed to drop it if | : <he franchise clauses were defeated. Mt. 'Jf'oates replied that this was his inten- | lion. Tn that case Mr. Forbes remarked ' I their best policy wa s to ajrree to the • franchise. Mr. J. McCombs fLvtteltoni eharac- '- tiM'iscd (his n« (he weakest atf.'ludfi «*V<T adopted by an official Opposition. TTic-v | ; should oitlier got over to the other side j ' or sr>t out. i Mr. Forbes said his attitude was dio--1 fated by common sense of which he-was ; just as good a judge as Air. McCombs. The franchise in the bill wag quite saitis-, factory to country districts. Mr. Savage said that when clause 20 ; wn« reached he would move an ar—- " ment which would ■show where members stood on this question. Later he did | ■ so and moved to delete the word "rate-1 ■ paver" and substitute "elector as the ■ rmnlifieation of the persons entitled to ; vote at the election of the power boards. ■ On a division being tuken the amend--1 ment was defeated hy 42 votes to 17The bill was then Teporterl without '■ amendment, read a third time, and ■ passed.