WATER SUPPLY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 259, 2 November 1933, Page 9

WATER SUPPLY.

AUCKLAND SUBURBS.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE VIEW

" UNABLE TO PRONOUNCE."

Whether or not the Auckland Chamber of Commerce should enter the controversy concerning the Auckland suburban water supply was the question debated at some length by the council of the chamber this morning. Mr. Harvey Turner presided. Discussion arose when a recommendation from the executive, "that in view of the many issues involved the matter of the Auckland suburban water supply be deemed to be one 011 which the chamber should not make a pronouncement," came before the meeting. In objecting to the recommendation, | Mr. S. Takle pointed out that some time ago the chamber urged the City Council to reduce expenditure and rates. The City Council had been striving to keep rates down, but now, when opportunity was afforded the chamber to help, the help asked had been withheld. He asked whether, seeing that there was such a divergence of views between suburban customers and the city, it would not be in the general interest if the facts relating to the water supplies of the city as contained in the Water Commission's report and otherwise were ascertained and published. Parliament, he said, was entitled to that much assistance from the chamber. History had shown that such concessions as were sought by the water company were often loaded on to the community at high prices when 110 longer profitable to the concessionaires. Instances of that were provided by the Auckland tramways and the Broadcasting Company. The City Council courted independent investigation into its water business and claimed the support of the chamber in keeping down the costs to tho ratepayers of the city. To stand aloof and allow ignorant criticism and the claims of vested interests to pass unchecked meant the certain increase in rates and cost.'* to the public generally.

" Leave the Matter Open." ! Mr. Gainor Jackson suggested as an amendment "that in view of the inadequacy of the information available, the matter is one on which the chamber at the present time is unable to make a pronouncement." Such a resolution, he said, would leave the matter open. Mr. A. G. Lunn gave the opinion that the chamber should at least give an expression of opinion that a public utility of the importance of that under discussion should be in the hands of public bodies and not in those of private enterprise. The chamber, he thought, should not encourage private competition of that kind. Mr. W. A. Boucher expressed the view that tlio water company's proposals would be of considerable benefit to the community, and mentioned the success of similar private undertakings overseas, specially those financed by British capital. He had no personal interest in the matter, but he thought it would be a fatal mistake for the chamber, to throw cold water on the water company's scheme. At this stage it was suggested that a select committee should be set up to collect evidence from both sides and report to the chamber.

"Not Competent." Speaking against the amendment, Mr. A. M. Seaman said that lie would say in all seriousness that the chamber was not in a position to set up a committee competent to go adequately into the question. He referred to the time occupied by the Water Commission and mentioned the difficulty that would be experienced in collecting all the facts. If the chamber was going to get out a report it would have to do it properly, and a lot of time would be necessary. He did not think that the chamber should make any pronouncement. Mr. Jackson pointed out that it was not necessary to confine the personnel of the committee to members of the chamber. After further discussion the amendment, without the addition concerning the setting up of a committee, was passed.