POWER BOARD

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17409, 6 November 1930, Page 10

POWER BOARD

(To the Editor of tho Herald.) Sir,—ln bis reply to Air. Beaufoy’s motion for reduction of power board rates to the consumer, it is reported in your issue of Friday last, that- Air. Ball, iliainmm of the power board, stated that the profits on the preceding year’s trading amounted to £2OOO. In view of the fact- that the audited"" balance .-licet discloses that- the profit- for (be year amounted to £sooo..doitht exists in the minds of ratepayers as to what is the actual position. .... Either the

auditor's certificate condemns Air.-Ball’s statement, or Air. Ball’s statement condemns the auditor’s certificate, and the public is desirous of knowing which is right, and why two such important statements.<>n a single issue, can be made to harmonise.

1 must .say that the public" finds it very difficult to reconcile Mr. Ball’s attitude at Friday’s meeting with the attitude he adopted and the statements published by the power board- three years ago, when he was likewise chairman. The same observation applies, I am afraid, to other ..member's -of the board to an equal degree. In a. power board publication issued in ,1927. when Messrs. Ball, Corson, Iloldswortli, Bridge, and Maclean occupied positions in power board matters similar to those which they hold to-day, they stated to all potential consumers of current “that by tlm advent- of cheap hydro-electric power this district would come abreast” of other places in New Zealand,, but that "‘until . hydro-electricity is available the board cannot charge such reduced rates as it, will be able to do later on.” However- ‘-‘that as-A soblias hydro-electricity is provided by the Government the rates for all users, excepting, perhaps, for lighting, may be further reduced” below the rates quoted elsewhere mi Hie pamphlet, Hydro-electricity has been available, now for over two years, and one, won-, ders why the reduced rates that were promised “as soot) as it was available are not yet brought into operation. There is a considerable difference in the. attitude. I must say, between what was. promised three years ago, and the' voting against cheaper current a fewdays ago. •• ...-- . Front the power board’s publication of 1927 we learn. “What the Poverty Bav Electric Bower Board Really Is.” I presume that the gentlemen named, above subscribed to the statement issued; “that it is not a private company. established to make all the profits it can out of the consumers.” If they did not so subscribe, there is no indication of the fact recorded. Apparently they shared also in responsibility for saving “that tho. board lias only to pay its way,” and was in “a position, to distribute electricity without profit, and that what profits were made “must he, refunded in some form connected with electricity,” and “they will be banded back to consumers in one wav or another, either by increasing facilities, or by reducing rates.” As the board showed a profit of over £SOOO last year, it is difficult to understand why the actual promises made by Messrs. Ball. Corson. Iloldswortli, Bridge, and Maclean to the consumers and potential consumers in 1927. should havte been so strongly opposed by the same gentlemen in 1933. It was apparently* imputed also at- the meeting that Mr, Beaufoy had some other unknown motive in tabling bis ~resolution, but it is obtions to those who have followed events, even in a casual inamie:);,. . that he., was but asking for that which- Air. Ball 'tain-

self had stated would be given “as soon as hydro-electricity was available.” It is interesting to observe also that at 'Friday’s meeting the. initiative for preference to British goods should ha\o been taken by a supporter of the cause of Labor, whose members generally are considered to range amongst- the “Empire wreckers.” ..... One really finds it difficult to follow the meandevings of the chairman of the power hoard. At Friday’s meeting it was noticed that he opposed the motion of Aliy DeCosta that- the power board discontinue trading, vet, as n mombei’ of tho Chciinbei of Commerce, he must be aware that the latter body is violently hostile to * municipal government, or local body trading, and has taken over tho work of the 1928 committee to bring about an era when all trading will he earned on bv private, enterprise. What have his fellow members of the Chamber of Commerce to say about this? I am not writing in support of private enterprise, and I am with Mr. Ball as far as-oppos-ing Mr. DeCosta’s motion is concerned. But what exactly are All*. Ball’s principles? ..... What people really desire to know, however, is why All*. Ball opposed a motion for cheaper electricity, when he has already promised that it would be given long ago; and if he is a staunch supporter of the British. Empire, why is he .so hostile to giving preference to British goods, and if he is - such an ardent supporter of private enterprise, why does he support a local body concern that is in competition with private traders? Air. Ball states that if the new loan is sanctioned there will Ire no need, to strike an additional rate, but in view of liia general inconsistency the people are hardly prepared to accept his statements. It is certainly time, someone raised a cry for cheaper electricity, and it is to he hoped that Mr. Beaufoy will persist in his endeavors to obtain what the people demand.—l am, etc., JAUL.