SUMNER AND AMALGAMATION

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23972, 12 June 1943, Page 6

SUMNER AND AMALGAMATION

Sir,—l would like to thank Mr Machin for his reply, but I did not criticise his action in seeking terms. I merely asked him why he does not know the terms now, when he apparently knew them on February 11. He may not agree with the quotation, but he made that statement just the same. Mr Machin mentions sewage, electricity, and gas. Sewage control rests with the people. Electricity, a borough asset, will have to be handed over to the city; but against that, our gas undertaking, which Mr Machin has told us is a bankrupt concern, will also have to be accepted by the city. The only terms interesting the taxpayer are what he gets for what he pays; and we are paying in round figures 7d for what we can get for 4d. Why not assist to get contiguity and let the people exercise their common right—the right to decide the matter for themselves.— Yours, etc., E. J. EBERT. June 7, 1943.

[“I still adhere to the view that the terms and conditions granted by the city to New Brighton after prolonged negotiations were good, and if the same kind of terms can be obtained by Sumner over its wider and more extensive responsibilities I should be in favour of amalgamation,” said Mr Machin last evening. “It must be borne in mind, however, that Sumner is a more highly organised and complete civic entity, and in my opinion its councillors have a duty to its citizens to weigh and examine as carefully the details of amalgamation as they would a business partnership and agreement. I want to know the details so that when the time comes for a poll of the citizens of Sumner it can be accurately explained to them what the proposals involve.”]