GRIEVANCE AIRED

Southland Times, Issue 20220, 4 July 1927, Page 7

GRIEVANCE AIRED

BOARD’S LEVY RESENTED

NON-RETICULATED RATEPAYERS’ MEETING

PETITION AND DEPUTATION TO GO FORWARD

Judging by the size and tone of their meeting on Saturday it is evident that the ratepayers in the non-reticulated areas in Southland are not going to submit passively to the imposition of the rates levied by the Electric Power Board.

The meeting, which was a thoroughly representative one, was attended by about 40 ratepayers and was presided over by Mr Blatch.

In opening the discussion, Mr Blatch said he was pleased to see such a large gathering. No doubt they had all seen the result of the deputation which had waited on the Power Board members at the last meeting of the board. Subsequently it had been decided to call a further meeting in Invercargill and they were gathered together to discuss ways and means by which they could obtain some measure of relief from the unjust burden imposed upon them. He then read a petition which had been drawn up with a view to its being presented to Parliament, and invited members to make suggestions as to any additions or amendments thereto.

Mr. Hamilton said that as they got very little assistance from the Power Board they should set up a committee to go into the whole position. He moved: "That a committee be set up for the purpose of investigating the position and approaching a higher power for immediate relief.” Mr. Cooper suggested that the Government be asked to take over the whole scheme. In support of this suggestion he quoted letters from the Prime Minister (when the letter was written he was Minister of Public Works) and the Hon. G. J. Anderson. Both gentlemen had expressed themselves in favour of the scheme prior to the formation of the Power Board. He moved as an amendment that the Government be asked to take over the whole scheme.

The secretary, Mr Cochrane, remarked that the Government might take over the reticulation but not the whole scheme.

Mr. Cooper: Let’s get past the law. We must get some reasonable and sound propositions. If we, as non-reticulated ratepayers, attempt to get the rate removed it will only put a bigger burden on the reticulated ratepayers. A member: Let the Government find the solution of the difficulty. lam in favour of sending the petition. Last year the Power Board assured us that they would be in a position to review the rate. Ido not say that the board is not composed of honourable men, but I would be very chary of taking their advice. Mr Jeff: I think the Government commissions during the past few years have been something of a failure. It is just a matter of giving a certain number of people a job for the time being. It was suggested by another member that the Government be asked to connect up the non-reticulated ratepayers.

“Can the Power Board claim more than a farthing in the pound 7” asked a member. The chairman: Yes; they can claim anything up to 3d. He added that the circulars first issued to the ratepayers were not authorised by the Power Board and carried no weight. Mr. Cooper: The scheme is likely to be a good asset in ten years.

The chairman: When the Government thinks it is a good scheme they have power to take it over.—(Laughter.) Mr Cochrane: It’s no use picking holes in the Power Board or Government. Every, body knows that there is a grave injustice being done. I think that all would help us if we started the ball rolling. Mr. Cooper here made an addition to his amendment which then read: “That the Government be asked to take over the whole scheme and place it on the same footing as other power boards in New Zealand.” On being put to the vote the amendment was lost.

A member remarked that asking the Government to set up a commission would be merely providing it with a loophole.

Mr. Jeff: I take it the idea of a commission is to get past the ruling of the Power Board’s solicitor.

Mr. Cochrane: I don’t think the commission would take very long. One member might be the local magistrate. A member: Mr. Cruickshank has practically admitted that the law was wrong. He advised us to petition Parliament and have the law altered.

Mr Jeff: If the petition goes before the Petitions Committee of the House it would take no action on the grounds that it would not interfere in local body affairs. Mr Murrell: Has the committee in Wellington power to say whether or not petitions go any further? The chairman: Petitions go before the Petitions Committee, and if the committee says it has no recommendation to make it goes no further; if recommended for further consideration it goes forward and 'is discussed by the House. Mr. Murrell: Well, in that case it is no use sending the petition. The chairman: I think we should send both the petition and a deputation.—(Hear, hear).

Mr. Hamilton’s motion: “That the petition as outlined go forward, and that a deputation accompany it,” was put and carried by an overwhelming majority. On the motion of Mr Murrell it was decided to send three delegates to Wellington. COMMITTEE APPOINTED. A committee was then set up to make the necessary arrangements in connection with the deputation, the member® being as follow: Messrs Cochrane, HiD, Hamilton, Drummond, Jeff, Darrock, Murrell, Pearce, Smith, Cooper, Bailey, Charters, Burrows, McLean, Patterson, Blatch and Hedley.