“Pressure Groups” Criticised

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32052, 29 July 1969, Page 14

“Pressure Groups” Criticised

(lt.Z. Preu AxtoeiaHon) DUNEDIN, July 28. The president of the Electric Power Boards Association of New Zealand (Mr R. N. White) has written to local authorities, saying that the Electricity Distribution Commission should be allowed to do its work without the intervention of “pressure groups.”

The letter is a reply, to one sent to local authorities last month by the president of the Municipal Electrical Supply Authorities Association (Mr E. Whittleston, of Dunedin). Mr Whittleston's letter urged the local authorities to give serious consideration to the fact that the Electricity Distribution Commission would begin reorganising the distribution of elect icity tn New Zealand after October 1. Mr Whittleston reminded local authorities of a resolution made by his association in 1965, which stated: “This association is of the opinion that in order to strengthen

local government in New Zealand the basic control of the distribution of electricity should remain in the hands of the territorial local authorities.” He recommended that local bodies decide whether the concept of an area electricity authority was worthy of investigation. Mr Whittleston warned that any alternative to the concept of area electricity authorities with nominated membership and controlled by territorial local government would ,e a further fragmentation of responsibility and a move towards a greater proliferation of ad hoc bodies.

In his letter, Mr White said his association could refute Mr Whittleston’s claims if it proved necessary. “It would not strengthen local government if the price of domestic power was increased to provide fund, to reduce rates for commercial properties, nor would it provide an additional source of revenue if the price of power should become a political football," he said.

The Electricity Distribution Commission Act had the support of a substantial major-

ity of the supply authorities in New Zealand, including many of those who were members of the Municipal Electricity Supply Authorities Association. The commission should be allowed to do its work without the intervention of pressure groups, he said. Council Challenge In Timaru, the impartiality of the Electricity Distribution Commission was challenged by the Timaru City Council tonight and it was unanimously resolved to take the issue to the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk). The council resolved:— “In view of the apparent understanding between the Eleetrieity Distribution Commission and the South Canterbury Electric Power Board, this council informs the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of its lack of confidence in the impartiality of the commission.” The chairman of the council’s power committee (Cr E. G. Johnston) said the board was proceeding with its grand-

lose schemes in the form of a new building and a computer, ostensibly with sufficient capacity for a “much larger undertaking,” at a time when it should be uncertain about its future. The building would cost $350,000 and the computer $70,000. In view of the known aim of the commission—to rationalise electricity distribution in New Zealand for the benefit of consumers—it would appear that the board should not be proceeding at this time unless it had knowledge of the intentions of the commission or a degree of understanding between the commission and the board, of which the council was unaware. “Surely the commission would have advised the board not to proceed with its building schemes until a plan for South Canterbury had been decided on, and if the commission did so advise the board and the board still intended to proceed with its plans, then surely this should have been brought by the chairman of the commission to the notice of the Minister of Electricity (Mr Shand),” Mr Johnston said.