ELECTRIC POWER

Southland Times, Issue 21582, 21 December 1931, Page 6

ELECTRIC POWER

AVAILABILITY RATE

FARMERS’ UNION SEEKS EXPLANATION LUMSDEN REMIT The operation of the Southland Electric Power Boards availability rate and the alleged injustice caused by it in certain cases through the words “conclusive ex id—encc” being included in the Act were subjects which came up for discussion at Saturday’s meeting of the Southland Executive of the Farmers’ Union when a remit from the Lumsden branch, urging that the word “tentative” be substituted for “conclusive,” was dealt with. It was finally decided to refer the matter to the Power Board for an explanation. The remit was as follows: “That the Government be urged to amend immediately sub-section 5 of section 8 of the Electric Power Boards Act, 1927, by deleting the word ‘conclusive’ and substituting the word ‘tentative.’ Sub-section 5 would then read: Tn any procedure for the recovery of the rate to which this section applies, a certificate in writing under the hand of the engineer or other responsible officer of the board to the effect that electric power was, at the time the rate was made, available for any prqperty to the extent referred to in sub-section 3 hereof shall be tentative evidence of that fact.’ ” , . The adaption of the remit was moved by Mr W. H. Ward, who said that Parliament should alter without much trouble the word conclusive. If a case were brought before the Court the Magistrate, even though the evidence were overwhelmingly against. it, had to go by the certificate. In a case brought against one of their members, even though evidence was brought forward that the power was not available, he had had to pay. He did not think any power board would take advantage of such a state of affairs, but it was a free country and any man was entitled to justice. The power line might be a hundred miles away, to take an extreme case, and yet the engineers word would override everything. What he asked was that the matter should be brought before the Government and any legislation passed made retrospective. It was quite a simple thing. Mr W. Couser said it was a legal absurdity. The engineer’s word could override the magistrate’s decision even after conclusive evidence had been heard. Mr D. Dickie said he opposed going any further until the whole thing was made clearer. The problem was a legal form. He had never learnt bow the engineer was misled in the case referred to. He desired to move an amendment that the matter bo referred to the Power Board for an explanation. Mr S. Shaw said he understood that in the letter written by Mr Royds to the paper the editor had kept back something which Mr Royds had asked him to publish. The Magistrate had commented on the case and asked the Power Board if it saw the injustice of it. Mr Ward said there ,was the case of Mr Cuthbert! Mr Cuthbert had an extensive property and. the engineer had only to certify that the poles went past a corner of his property. It would cost money to take the lines such a long distance, and then there was the heavy rates.

Mr Dickie said that correspondence to the editor was always biassed and they could not always believe what the correspondents said. Mr D. J. Heenan said that under the present Act Mr Cuthbert had no legal exemption and they could not break the Act. If the line were a link within 10 chains of the property, the property was subject to the full rate. That was the law. He did not think the board had seen the decision in Mr Hamilton's case. Mr Hamilton’s case, which concerned the ownership of land, was peculiar. Undoubtedly the board would see that Mr Hamilton got justice. As they knew, a lot of wasteful lines had been put up around the country and now they were being torn down. The board was hedged round with enactments. He was certainly in sympathy with Mr Hamilton if his case was as stated in the paper. He did not think there was a member of the board who would not be in agreement and he would be one to see that justice was given. Mr Ward said the main point was to have the Act amended.

Mr Heenan said he thought it would be a wise move to get the decision in Mr Hamilton’s case from the Power Board. Mr Hamilton said the decision had been published. The amendment was then carried.