Labour Wary Of Power Bill

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31449, 16 August 1967, Page 1

Labour Wary Of Power Bill

(N.Z. Press Association)

WELLINGTON, August 15.

A wary reception was given to a bill designed to bring the decisions of an independent electricity distribution commission on changes in the boundaries of electricity supply authorities into full debate in Parliament.

Opposition speakers said the bill could bring politics into electricity distribution, which would not normally be the case, and would hinder reform in local Government matters.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) said that whenever local government reform had suffered a setback it was because Parliament had taken decisions instead of referring them to an independent commission. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Watt) asked if the Minister of Electricity (Mr Shand) really believed that the House could discuss changes in electricity distribution without politics entering into it. The crux of this bill was whether a local power authority eould get a fairer hearing from an independent body or from Parliament itself, he said. Appeal Authority Parliament Itself would in effect become an appeal authority on schemes to reform the pattern of power supply authorities and to adjust their boundaries. The Electricity Distribution Commission (No. 2) Bill will replace a 1966 measure which remained unpassed at the end of last session.

From April 1 next year, it would constitute an independent five-man electricity distribution commission, with the board brief of producing schemes to ensure that “the system of distribution in any locality ... be such as best provides or will provide for the needs and continued development of that locality." With a lawyer of at least seven years’ standing as chairman, the commission would have three fewer members and much narrower powers than were proposed last year.

One member would represent municipal supply authorities, one power boards, one the over-all executive committee of the Electrical Supply Authorities’ Association and one the Electricity Department. The commission would have all the powers of a commission of inquiry and would appoint its own staff. On its own initiative or at the request of either the Minister or a supply authority, the commission would produce a reorganisation scheme, covering not only alteration or merger of supply districts but also payments between supply authorities for any transfers of power between them. Public Inquiry If it deemed the move desirable, the commission could hold a public inquiry. After preparing and giving public notice of a provisional scheme, it would hear any objections, decide on them and produce a final scheme. The bill provides for a new form of supply authority—a regional electricity supply authority—in cases where a final scheme would extend the district of a municipal

supply authority beyond the comparable local body boundaries.

That provision is optional: any scheme for a regional supply authority could include proposals for representations on the new authority of constituent municipal supply authorities, for distribution to them of any surpluses earned and for payment to power boards of compensation for revenue losses resulting from boundary changes. There would be no appeal to a special tribunal against a final scheme, as envisaged in the 1966 bill. Instead, a resolution of Parliament would be necessary before any regional supply authority could be created and before any territory covered by a power board could be transferred to a municipal supply authority, or vice versa.

Final schemes not requiring Parliamentary confirmation would take effect by order-in-coun dl. Those which did need such sanction would be forwarded to the Minister, who would be required to table them in the House, with certificates from the chairman of the commission showing

whether the parties affected objected. The bill was Introduced, given a second reading pro forma, and referred to a select committee.

Mr Shand said that during the hearing of evidence on the original bill, the Municipal Association had withdrawn its support for the bill on the grounds that the proposed commission did not cover all the aspects of power distribution it had felt necessary. There was no provision in present statute for supply areas to be extended. Mr Shand said that under the provisions of the new bill the commission gave a complete plan of the proposed distribution scheme to the Minister which the Minister must table in the House within 14 days. The Minister must then move a motion that the scheme be approved and it would be debated in full and the House would decide whether to accept or reject the proposal. If it were rejected the Minister would refer it back to the commission. Parliament would not be asked to deal with the details of power distribution schemes as these would be dealt with by the commission. Mr Kirk suggested that throwing the subject open for debate In the House could create an opportunity for the Government to air its policies. There would not necessarily be unanimity among M.P.S on this question. Mr Shand replied that the Municipal Association and the Power Board’s Association had been consulted about the bill. “I would not consider that power distribution should be a matter that the political parties should have nothing to do with at all," he said. Not Policy

Mr A H. Nordmeyer (Lab., Island Bay) suggested that under the provisions of the bill, the Minister of Electricity could find himself introducing a motion in Parliament that might be contrary to Government policy.

“There are times in Parliament when discussion revolves around something that has nothing to do with politics,” said Mr Shand. “I would hope that this might be legislation that the House would not concern itself about by, dividing on party lines.”