Delegates Disagree On Power Industry Control

Press, Volume C, Issue 29625, 22 September 1961, Page 12

Delegates Disagree On Power Industry Control

There was clear division between municipalities and power boards, in general, at the annual conference of the Electrical Supply Authorities’ Association of New Zealand yesterday when delegates debated a special report recommending the setting up of an electricity council which .would take over the administration and policy of the electricity indqstry. The motion that the report be adopted was still being debated when the conference adjourned to today.

When it was moved that the report be adopted. Dr. D. Rogers (Hamilton City Council) moved an amendment that the report be deleted from the associations conference paper. The report was from a representative committee set up at a special general meeting of the association in Rotorua earlier this year. Dr. Rogers’s amendment was defeated by 210 votes to 68. Dr. Rogers described the proposal as a gigantic takeover, empire building, and thoroughly undemocratic.

“Wrong in Principle” It was wrong in principle, he said, as it took away from the Government the responsibility of administering a major State department and a State enterprise which had been placed in the Government’s- responsibility by the people. “We believe the State must continue to be responsible for the generation of electricity. It is our responsibility to distribute power to consumers, not to take over the Government’s responsibility.” Dr. Rogers added that the Municipal Supply Authorities’ Association was firmly against the proposal also. Mr J. E. Storey (Taupo Borough Council), who supported Dr. Rogers’s amendment. said the proposals in the report were contrary to decisions at the special conference between the power boards and the municipalities.

Mr P. Kearins (Taihape Borough Council) said the stability of the whole industry was threatened. The fact remained that the boroughs were worried about being taken over. “We pioneered distribution, and are apprehensive about losing our rights.” he said “The whole economy of boroughs is tied up with revenue from the sale of electricity. Who will compensate us if we lose that revenue?"

Mr P. G. Skinner (Bay of Plenty Electric Power Board) said the report of the representative committee should not be thrown away because of an inherent fear by some of the local bodies that they would lose some of their rights. “That is exactly what we are worried about—takeovers,” said Mr A. J. Denz (Hamilton City Council). “We

do not want an ad hoc body coming into our town and taking away revenue from the citizens." “Who is behind this? N>one seems prepared to admit it,” he said. “The Minister of Electricity (Mr Goosman) said he would look into the matter after the conference reached a decision. He has not registered his approval of the report.” Supporting Dr. Rogers's amendment, Mr E. Wbittleston (Dunedin City Council) said the proposed electricity council could become a distinctly bureaucratic body. To whom would it be answerable? Further Amendments

An amendment to the section of the committee's report defining the proposed council’s functions, moved by Mr J. C. Werry (Raetihi Borough Council) was lost by 210 votes to 68.

Mr Werry moved that a reconstituted power-planning committee be established as a

statulory body, with power to initiate and report to the Minister on all matters touching generation of electricity by the State. He said this would give the distributing authorities a substantial voice in the planning of State generation of electricity. He said his amendment, if carried, would bring some unanimity between the municipalities and the power boards.

An amendment by Mr L. V. Blackie (Invercargill City Council) that an independent tribunal, instead of the proposed electricity council, decide boundary adjustments, and amalgamations, so that power board or municipal members could not be accused of bias, was defeated by 190 votes to 84.

Also defeated was an amendment by Mr D. B. Mills (Hamilton City Council) that where an amalgamation or boundary adjustment was proposed and 5 per cent, of the electors affected objected a poll should be held.