TAURANGA GAS WORKS

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 13228, 19 August 1943, Page 3

TAURANGA GAS WORKS

REFERENCE IN HOUSE Tribunal’s Refusal To Allow Price Increase “Candles and Camp Ovens” When the activities of the Price Tribunal were under discussion in Parliament on Friday, Mr F. W. Doidge, M.P., asked whether gas consumers in Auckland were threatened with the same fate as had befallen the gas consumers in Tauranga. The Auckland Gas Co., said Mr Doidge, had postponed the paying of a dividend, and had explained its difficulties to shareholders by declaring that it had been unable to obtain authority to raise gas prices, or even to adjust tlie prices paid by certain consumers who to-day are paying less than the present cost of manufacture.”

“It would appear that Auckland is likely to find itself in the same difficult position as Tauranga,” continued Mr Doidge. ‘‘There the gas company, faced with the necessity of increasing prices to the consumer, or of closing down its works, ultimately had to cease functioning. The facts were placed frankly before the Price Tribunal, the Tribunal refused to approve an increase in price, and the works ceased to function. Several hundred families and business places ■were embarrassed, 'but that didn’t worry the Tribunal. In Auckland the company says it is being forced to supply gas below 7 cost. What is to be their ultimate fate?”

The Hon. D. G. Sullivan, Minister of Industries and Commerce, said the trouble at Tauranga was due to local conditions. The works were old and inefficient.

Mr Doidge: They could have carried on until the war ended, and new plant could have been secured or, alternatively, there would have been a chance of turning over to electricity. Mr Sullivan: The company wanted to increase the price to the consumer. The Price Tribunal would not agree. The Tribunal is charged with certain responsibilities. It could not concur. A peculiar position arose. The

Borough Council could have taken over. It refused to do so. There was no public outcry when the position became known.

Mr Doidge; That is not correct. There was a very considerable outcry, and a lot of agitation. Mr Sullivan: It is true that the Hon. Member for Tauranga was very active about it at the time. He came to see me. But it is true that the Borough Council did not think it desirable to take over. There was no public agitation for another company to be formed to take over. Mr Doidge: How could another company have been formed to take over the works when the Price Tribunal had made it clear that no increase in price would be permitted? What new company would take over a business compelled to run at a loss?

Mr Sullivan: I have no desire to stress the fact that the works were in a bad condition. The family concerned were friends of mine. But it was an old plant. If the position was as bad as the Honourable Member makes out, the public would have taken action They would have made it imperative for the Council to take over

The Hon. P. C. Webb, Minister of Mines, said in neither Tauranga nor Auckland could the difficulty which had arisen be ascribed to shortage of coal supplies. In both instances plants were not up-to-date. In Tauranga the company was in such a bad way that it owed the State Coal Mine Department £ 500. Mr Doidge replied that all that had been said simply showed that the Price Tribunal was responsible for trying to force the companies to run at a loss. The policy was one which in the end forced homes back to the use of candles and camp ovens.