COUNCIL FIRM.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 145, 21 June 1934, Page 5

COUNCIL FIRM.

CIVIC BUSINESS.

ELECTRICITY IN SYDNEY. SALES DEPARTMENT TO GO. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, June 16. In spite of all opposition, the City Council has by a narrow majority reaffirmed its original decision to abolish .the sales branch of the municipal electricity department, and it is likely that the enterprise will be closed down within six months. A short time ago the council authorised the expenditure of £10,000 in a publicity campaign to encourage the use of electricity, a point being made that; in its sales department the council had I a potent influence working in that direction. If the department is abolished, this expenditure will go to enrich private j firms and individuals. The argument! on which the council mainly relies id that its sale of electrical goods is "socialistic," that it ought not to enter into competition with private enterprise, and that the city should follow the State Government in shutting, down certain important State works, because they illustrated "socialistic" principles. Strangely, the firms here engaged in making and selling electrical goods and appliances support strongly the maintenance of the city sales department, and two important and influential deputations have protested strongly against the proposed change. The electricity department lias been conducted with great ability and energy, and its public displays have produced an increase in the demand for the use of the current, thus enabling the council to reduce its charges. Another result has been to encourage the general public to purchase electrical appliances on a large scale, from private firms and shops as well as from the city sales department.

However, the point has bcum raised by the Lord Mayor that the electricity department was financed largely on an American loan of £2,000,000 raised in New York, one of the conditions being that the money thus borrowed was to be applied to "the extension of the electricity undertakings of the council." Would not the closing down of the sales branch—a negative act —amount to a direct breacli of the agreement, and would not the American bondholders have legal ground for objection? This question has been referred to the council's legal advisers for an opinion.