POWER SUPPLY IN N.Z.

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25607, 23 September 1948, Page 6

POWER SUPPLY IN N.Z.

CRITICISM FROM OPPOSITION

NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION DEFEATED

(P.A.)' WELLINGTON. Sept. 22. “What we want to do is to get rid of the Government that brought about this state of affairs.” said the Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) moving a motion of no-confidence in the House of Representatives* this evening. The motion was based on the electric power situation. The Minister in charge of the State Hydroelectric Department (Mr R. Semple) was the principal Government speaker. The motion was debated until after midnight when it was defeated on a division by 37 votes to 34. Mr Holland said there was usually a surprise element about such a motion of no-confidence, but this time the Opposition had been so confident of its case that he had conferred with the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) this morning and told him of the Opposition’s intentions. There was a crisis to-day in the supnly of electrical energy. Electricity supply was a State monopoly and there was no alternative supply. The Government had organised a demand for electric power far beyond the present supply. The Government had not organised an ample supply of electricity necessary to meet the augmented demand. It was typical of Socialist planning. "Worse Before it is Better”

The position was bad, it was steadily deteriorating, and would be worse before it was better, said Mr Holland, who quoted from the recent report of a special committee of supply authority engineers. The committee had reported that next year there would be in the North Island a deficiency of 135,000,000 units, growing to 629.0U0.000 units by 1955.

Mr Holland said restrictions imposed to offset this deficiency must fall most irksomely on the housewife. The committee had predicted that if there was a dry autumn such as this year the situation would be almost disastrous.

The Government had fallen down on the job and had produced no constructive proposals for alternative supply while the hydro-electric stations lagged behind the demand. The levels of Lakes Waikaremoana and Taupo were now. with the approach of drier weather, dangerously low. Other countries had been, able to obtain equipment and surely New Zealand could have done the same. The Opposition stood for the installation of auxiliary plant, using oil or fuel, even if it was expensive, because the cost of power shortages was even higher.

Minister’s Reply lor Semple said the development of hydro-electric energy was one of the problems the present Government had to face when it assumed office. When he took over his portfolio he looked to see what plans the previous Government had. There were none There was a little tinpot scheme on the Cobb river and even that had been handed a *Px l . vat ® company. In July, 1932. the National Expenditure Commission had reported that the stage in the development of hydro-electric power at t s a X tl S e as suffi cient for the needs of the Dominion for many years Mr Semple said the total generating capacity to-day was practically three times what it was in 1935. It should not be forgotten that during the Governments term of office there wefe six years of war when labour and plant were almost unobtainable. New Zealand was the only country that had carried on hydro-electric development during the war, except Canada. The Canadian scheme was not to provide power for industrial or domestic purp°saav Wa l part of the effort to manufacture aluminum- for war purposes. _ „ Capital Outlay The Government had made such progress that by 1953 the capital outlay would be £74.000,000. and bv 1957 £100.000,000. Was ’that sitting 7 down on the job? In 1935 914.000.000 „ were being generated, and -in 1948 2.600,000,000. Since 1940 there had a " „ increase in generation of 940.000.000 units, which was greater . l “ an . totsl generation in 1935. In the latter year there were 342.000 consumers and this year 502.000. The * of - units for each, consumer was 2260 m 1935, and now 4080 units The total consumption of electric power had increased 185 per cent under the Labour Government. Why? Mr T. P. Shsnd (Opposition. Marlborough): Because the people can’t get coal.

Mr Semple said it was because people had the money. Dealing with the supply of steel, Mr Semple said that he did not know how much longer New Zealand could depend on the goodwill of Australia, which hsd been selling her Broken Hill steel to New Zealand at £lO a ton and importing steel herself at £6O. Mr W. S. Goosman (Opposition. Piako) said preceding administrations had also started from scretch in providing electric power. How many stations had the Government planned where it knew where it was going to put the dams? It was all very well to talk about plans, but ide?s were not plans. The statement that 80 per cent, more power was being used than in 1935 was a wonderful argument. Why had the Government not provided power to meet this demand? The Minister had said in the House on June 27 last that what was worrying him was whether the storm could be weathered between the time the Tekspo and Pukaki schemes were finished and Coal Creek was developed, and that it seemed that the storm would not be weathered and that generating plant should be ordered from overseas, even if it was not delivered for two or three years. Mr Goosman asked if the Minister would tell the country that that plant had been ordered. The Minister was just trusting to luck. Private Auxiliary Plant

Mr Goosman said that hundreds of thousands -of pounds had been spent privately to provide auxiliary power • because people could not afford to be - without it, but it would be much S cheaper for the Government to build r one big auxiliary station. If New Zea- | land could not have hydro power it - must have steam-generated power to 5 take up the slack. With the wettest season for many years, Karapiro had to be kept going by drawing on the six feet of storage • at Taupo, and the level there was , already down two feet. The sooner ] the Minister realised that what it cost to have power was nothing like what ■ it cost not to have it the better t The Minister of Rehabilitation (Mr I C. F. Skinner) said that as a result of i a shortage of water, Sweden, the home ; of hydro-electric development, was in > the same position as New Zealand. • Mr J. R. Hanan (Opposition. Invercargill) said that instead of deciding 1 this month to seek 1000 immigrants for hydro works, the Government should have sought 5000 a year ago. Only if adequate labour and steel were obtained could the Coal Creek scheme be finished in 1955. The transmission of power from the South Island to the North had been suggested, but the cost was likely to be prohibitive. The Government should encourage industry to establish itself in the south where power was available, rather than to expand in the north, where new factories merely added to the burden on an already inadequate supply. Mr R. M. Algie (Opposition. Remuera. said the public was entitled tc know, but had not been informed, what steps were being taken for re* lief. The loss on the collapse of the tunnel, on marketing operations, and on railways (which were now hopelessly indebted) could be hidden in the depths of the Consolidated Fund, but the power shortage was one of the most spectacular failures of La- ] bour. because it went right into the . home and could not be hidden. The country wanted a Minister who would j ensure that when thev turned on their j power switches thev would get power. They did not want a Minister who j claimed that “I knocked out Common- < ism with a pamphlet.” Mr M. Moohsn (Government, Pe- ' tone) asked what was the use of build- ] ing steam plants when New Zealand ' s j had no coal or fuel to run them. The 11 j Government’s record gave the lie j direct to any suggestion that there was L no confidence in it.