MORE MEMBERS?

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 47, Issue 2667, 8 September 1937, Page 5

MORE MEMBERS?

ALLOCATION QUESTION POWER BOARD CONTROL THAMES AND TE AROHA REPRESENTATION DISPUTE. Prolonged discussion on representation on the Thames Valley Electric Power Board was a feature of yesterday’s meeting, the difficulty arising through the inclusion of the Waihi borough in the board’s area and the council’s request for representation, combined with the fact that the present composition of the board, 12 members, has reached the statutory limit. A proposal to combine the Thames and Te Aroha boroughs, both bulk consumers, failed by the margin of one vote. The board decided to ask for amending legislation to increase its membership to 16, providing for extra delegates from the Piako, Matamata and Hauraki Plains counties as well as the Waihi borough.

During August a conference among the board and the two boroughs had been held, reported the chairman, Mr J. Price. After many arguments had been heard no agreement could be reached. The difficulty was that there would be a majority of votes in one of those areas. He had suggested that that could be overcome by the Government appointing the member from the two boroughs but that had not been acceptable. Room For Expansion. The alternative was to increase the total membership. If the board decided to ask for an increase it would have to ask for more than one more, Mr Price continued, as many of. the districts did not have sufficient members. He quoted the case of the Piako county with one consumer to every assessment on the roll, which he said was phenomenal. There was any amount of room for expansion in other counties and that showed where the future expansion of the board would be.

“I still think that Thames and Te Aroha should be joined together and they would then be under no hardship,” he claimed. “Only once in five years are they actually concerned in the affairs of the board.” (When the agreements are reviewed). There could be one representative for those two bodies and Waihi borough would then get a representative. There were sufficient members on the board now to carry out its affairs, Mr Price concluded.

The uncertain position regarding possible county amalgamation was mentioned by Mr J. Pohlen who said that the legislation of the Minister of Internal Affairs would be going through this session and that would alter the position regarding the representation of the counties. In his opinion the only solution was to ask for more members to grant Waihi’s request.

Reluctance to Move.

“It is no use shelving the thing,” declared Mr H. M. Corbett, when the debate appeared to wane and no motion had been moved. “I move that the two bulk consumers should be combined and give Waihi the representative.”

He agreed that Piako county should have another member but did not see how that could be brought about. The boroughs would not suffer any disadvantage.

He agreed that Piako county should have another member but did not see how that could be brought about. The boroughs would. not suffer any disadvantage.

Boroughs and Counties.

In seconding the motion Mr J. M. Allen said that it seemed to be the most reasonable way out of the difficulty. He did not agree that Piako should have three representatives. “Two men on a board of this sort is the maximum representation anyone could look for,” he maintained. There were seven from the counties and five from the boroughs and that was roughly a fair proportion. The Thames and Te Aroha boroughs were bulk consumers of their own choosing and should be satisfied to be represented on the board by one man. An amendment was moved by Mr C. A. Arthur and seconded by Mr H. R. Bush that the membership of the board should be increased. “Line of Least Resistance.” Mr J. F. Mayn said he would oppose both resolutions. Amalgamation of Thames and Te Aroha would not

go far enough. The user paid and he should be represented.

“The motion takes the line of least resistance,” averred Mr Arthur. The bulk consumers had no advantage over the others and on the price fixed were on an equal basis with the rest of the

area. There was no community of interest between Thames and Te Aroha and the latter would be disfranchised by the greater population of the latter. Both would be disfranchised by a Government appointment. The Waihi borough had not shown any consideration for the Thames Valley board and did not come into the area until 19 years after it had started. It had- borne no liability for the heavy loans nor the high charges and now that the charges were down and the board was in a prosperous condition, it wanted “to come in and back a winner.” Waihi could wait a bit longer for a representative. Fate of Mining Towns.

Waihi and Paeroa should be combined, Mr Arthur countered. “Why not have a lick at the lot?” he suggested. Waihi was a mining town and all knew the fate of Waikino and Karangahake. Mr Flatt (Paeroa borough) had the time, inclination and ambi•tion to represent both.

“I would not suggest seriously that the Waihi borough will never be anything,” replied the chairman who pointed out that there was a large farming community behind the town.

Figures showing the lesser amount paid per capita to the board by the bulk consumers and the board’s own consumers were quoted by Mr F. E. Flatt. “Mr Arthur is very solicitous about Paeroa,” he stated. “I am just as solicitous about Te Aroha. Until the whole position of local bodies is reviewed there will be no harm if Thames and Te Aroha amalgamate.” It was not fair to say that Waihi had no right to come in now, Mr Flatt urged. If the mine closed down the town would still be a large centre.

“Do As They Like.”

Borough representatives of the board were called upon every day, Mr Flatt announced, and schemes such as community lighting, selling stoves, etc., had been brought about mostly through the efforts of those members. In the Thames and Te Aroha boroughs the members could do what they liked. There might be a little hardship for Te Aroha but that town would manage very well until a change came in local body administration throughout the country.

“As representing the Waihi borough I object to Mr Arthur saying that it was not entitled to representation,” stated Mr T. A. Barrett, who said that he favoured an increased membership on the board.

Mr J. McCormick also supported that view.

■ Mr Mayn gave notice of a second amendment.

Margin of One Vote.

The voting on the amendment was— For: Messrs Bush, Arthur, McCormick, Barrett and Pohlen; against, Messrs Mayn, Flatt, Allen and Corbett. The amendment was declared the motion.

“You are not allocating the members as you were asked,” maintained Mr Corbett. He pointed out that membership was limited by law to 12 and that the Public Works Department had requested the board to re-allocate the representatives. He queried whether the amendment was in order. Mr Mayn’s amendment that no increase in members should be made but that the counties should receive a greater share of representation, was ruled out of order. Mr Arthur’s amendment was put as the original motion and was carried by the same margin or five votes to four. Increase to Sixteen. Mr Arthur moved that it be a recommendation that the board membership should be increased to 16, giving one more member each to the Hauraki Plains, Piako and Matamata counties and one member to the Waihi borough. This was seconded by Mr Bush. Messrs Barrett and Flatt moved an amendment that the increase be limited to one, but this was lost by seven votes to two. Mr Arthur’s motion was carried, Mr Mayn beiing the only dissentient.