BAN ON COMPETITION
STATE POWER SCHEMES CHRISTCHURCH PROJECT GOVERNMENT’S ATTITUDE (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night. In a statement to the House'of Representatives to-day. the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes said that Mr. J. A. Maepherson, in a recent question, had referred to a Christchurch newspaper report that the Christchurch City Council was contemplating construction, by means of American capital, of an electric power-generat-ing plant on the Waimakariri River, and that it was proposed to obtain further reports on the scheme from American experts. “The council, no doufit, is contemplating possible action under tfie provisions of the City of Christchurch Electric Power and Loan Empowering Act, 1902,” Mr. Forbes said. “This gave the city certain rights to develop power on the Waimakariri River, and to borrow a sum not exceeding £2c0,000 for this purpose. This Act was passed prior to the Government passing the Water Power Act, 1903, and the Public Works Amendment Act, 1908, and in reality there is now no real reason for the existence of local Acts dealing with electrical matters. The City of Christchurch has never utilised the powers conferred by its special Act, and has continued to obtain its power requirements from the Government power plant, the plant at Lake Coleridge. STATE FINANCES AFFECTED
“The existing contract with the Government for the supply of power terminates in 1937,” he added. “Conditions at the present time, however, are very different from those existing at the time when the local Act, giving powers to tfie city, was passed. The Government itself has now entered into the power supply business in a comprehensive manner, and has invested a very large sum of money to supply the community generally. It has recently embarked upon a new power plant on the Waitaki River, involving an expenditure of over ±)2,009,(XX) to meet the increasing demand for power mainly from Christchurch, Canterbury, and Otago. % During the last year of the present contract with the City Council, it will pay to the Government a sum of at least £91,000 for power supplied. If this amount of revenue is to be lost for the future, the financial position of the State’s own electrical development would be seriously prejudiced. Works have been located and designed to meet the needs of the country as a whole, and would be over capitalised for the supply of the remaining district alone. This would mean that tfie cost of power to tfie remaining districts would have to bo increased. * “The Government has no intention of placing any further facilities in the City Council’s way, which would permit it now taking up an option which it failed to exercise when granted. It is inconceivable that the City of Christchurch should now he permitted to embark upon a scheme of its own in opposition to that of the State, and the Government is prepared to take definite steps to prevent the State’s interests from being jeopardised.” CHEAPER. POWER SOUGHT
Mr. D. G. Sullivan, Mayor of Christchurch, said that' preliminary negotiations between the Christchurch City Council and the American firm concerned had taken place years ago, and had resulted in tho Government undertaking to supply power from Lake Coleridge at the same rates as would obtain if the Waimakariri scheme were put into operation. The Christchurch people were satisfied that they could obtain power from Waimakariri at least at the rate they were now paying the Government. He asked in view of the Prime Minister’s statement, which would inevitably interrupt the negotiations, whether the Christchurch City Council could take it that Christchurch would be able to continue to obtain .power from Lake Coleridgo at least at the present rate, and, if possible, based on the rate which would be paid if the Waimakariri scheme were put into operation. Mr. Forbes said the matter was one for negotiation between the Christchurch City Council and the Public Works Department. He was sure that the Government was anxious to conic to a satisfactory arrangement with the City Council.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19331123.2.35
Bibliographic details
Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18253, 23 November 1933, Page 4
Word Count
663BAN ON COMPETITION Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18253, 23 November 1933, Page 4
Using This Item
The Gisborne Herald Company is the copyright owner for the Poverty Bay Herald. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Gisborne Herald Company. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.