ELECTRIC POWER SCHEME.

Southland Times, Issue 22992, 11 September 1936, Page 4

ELECTRIC POWER SCHEME.

To the Editor.

Sir,—As one of the two members of tile board who have been consistently in favour of transfer to the Government, it may be advisable now to state the case from my point of view. So much has been said and written that the issue has become clouded and confused, and my endeavour Is to be as brief and concise as possible. It has been stated that the board would be handing over to the Government assets valued at over £2,000,000. With the exception of about £16,000 allowed for depreciation, the full original value of the entire undertaking is included in this £2,000,000. Would anyone in the ordinary course of business offer original cost value for a plant twelve to fourteen years old? The headworks, machinery and reticulation are wasting assets, and should be provided for accordingly. The board hopes to make reduction in charges as time goes on. The Government promises to do the same immediately finance permits, and undertakes at once to reduce the 7d rate to 6Jd. In addition the Government offers certain definite immediate advantages to the ratepayers and consumers of Southland, which during the next five years should aggregate in money value over £lOO,OOO: — No more land rates. No more meter rents. No increase in present charges.

Continuity of supply of power through Waitaki and Coleridge.

The ratepayer must decide each for himself; but as one of the almost original members of the board my considered judgment is that the Government has made a fair and reasonable offer, and that it will be to the ultimate advantage of Southland as a whole if the proposals are accepted.—Yours, etc. A. LE H. HOYLES, F.I.A.N.Z. (by exam), A.R.A.N.Z. Invercargill, September 10, 1936.

To the Editor.

Sir, —Ratepayers are now receiving their ballot papers and will exercise their vote during the next few days. It is time that all personalities should be dropped. Neither side believes that the members of the opposing camps are other than the straight and above board Southlanders who usually interest themselves in public matters. If zeal and enthusiasm for a cause has led to colourful and spectacular utterances let us overlook the lapse and forget it. Any writer who has been a bit free and easy with his pen or his tongue is probably having a far worse time personally reflecting over his indiscretions and the difficulties ahead of him in squaring his relationship with hfr neighbour when the storm has blown over, than members of the general public who in all likelihood don’t care a hoot for the opinion of the delinquent in any case. What we have to face is whether we are going to hand over to the Government an undertaking that is outstanding in its conception, courageous in its development and of great potential value. Should we let it go? The Government is not going to pay two millions for a dud. No one would accuse a shrewd, strong man like Mr Nash of such an action. The Government is going to buy it because the Cabinet knows the proposition will pay and will add immensely to the value of their national scheme and will give them a return not in sight from some of the other projects they possess. If Southlanders let this undertaking out of their control after standing all the cost of bringing it to the stage of profit-making they have not the stuffing of their forefathers. With all the mistakes that may have been made, they are not nearly so great as in some of the schemes we will be linked up with if we sell. I believe the members of the Power Board are honest, upright men, they are citizens we know and respect. An overwhelming majority of them favour retention of the scheme and are satisfied it is a sound undertaking that will prove of inestimable value to the province. They ought to know, and we have put them there to manage the business; let us stick to them to see the job through. I am going to vote for retention and I hope a majority of the ratepayers will do the same.—Yours etc., JOHN FISHER. Otautau, September 10, 1936.

To the Editor.

Sir, —We, for the committee advocating sale to the Government, make the following ' challenge to Messrs Carswell, McChesney, Gilkison, Grieve and company: That in the event of the ratepayers voting to retain Monowai the public of Southland, to balance the budget, will have to pay over £200,000 in rates within a period of five years from the beginning of next financial year. The only conditions are that the board must conduct its business on. sound lines. It must: (1) Pay all interest falling due. (2) Provide sinking fund at £4 2/- or even 2J per cent, (these gentlemen have we understand stated from the platform that, should this reduction be allowed, no rate would be required). (3) Pay exchange on transmission of interest to London (not pile it up as overdraft in London). (4) Pay annual working costs from revenue. (5) Make reasonable provision for writing of plant within say 20 years. If the board can manage to carry on and not extract a further £200,000 by way of rates, we are prepared to pay £5O to the Hospital Board. Now we ask these gentlemen, back up their opinions by accepting this offer. If the total is £200,000 or over they, of course, pay £5O to the Hospital Board.—Yours, etc., J. W. SMITH. Invercargill, September 10, 1936.

To the Editor.

Sir,—We note that Mr Carswell is making capital out of our figures in which we state that the estimated annual rate required to carry on Monowai on a business basis would be £87,000. Mr Carswell quotes the figure as £27,000. We agree with him that this is the amount which the ratepayers of Southland will be billed for this year, if the scheme is retained, but we did not state that this amount was required this year. We state'again, and our figures are still unchallenged, that if the scheme is retained and conducted on business lines, allowing for interest, sinking fund, exchange, working expenses and, depreciation, the board will in future have to rate up to nur figure quoted—£B7,ooo. VZe know as well as Mr Carswell does that the London loan has been converted by the Government, but the board, if retaining the scheme, will have to pay a

higher rate than the Government is paying. Another statement we would like Mr Carswell to show clearly to the public is how does he get the sale of electricity up to £147,000 when Monowai official figures from the year book averaging over the last five years only amount to £119,000. The public knows that Monowai has been producing up to its limit, and prices for power have not been increased. We still invite Mr Carswell or any other advocate of the board to challenge our figures through the Press. We would again remind ratepayers of the early promise of the board, that there may be a possible rate of not more than £14,000. Result, £537,000 — and still more to come now that the Government is insisting on £4 2/- per cent, sinking fund. We also feel sure that this reduction will not be granted (read Mr Coates’s reply).—Yours, etc. H. J. FARRANT. J. W. SMITH. Invercargill, September 10, 1936.

To the Editor.

Sir,—The hot air expounded by the various supporters of the two propositions is inclined to become monotonous and perhaps bewildering. Being an Invercargillite of some ’ two years’ standing I feel qualified to intrude and perhaps have a more unbiased viewpoint than most writers to your paper. Not being interested in assets and liabilities my thoughts go immediately to the practical side of the argument, i.e., the one that hits every man’s pocket from day to day. I enclose some accounts for electricity consumed in Dunedin, where I was last resident, and Invercargill. The Dunedin house had nine electric points and likewise my present home in Invercargill. The accounts cover a 12 months period, and my Dunedin home consumed nearly twice the number of units and cost under half the Invercargill amount. Units Consumed Cost. £ s. d. Invercargill 326 6 0 0 (Cost per unit, 4.416 d.) Dunedin 531 2 15 10 (Cost per unit, 1.261 d.) Why should we, only 140 miles away, be asked to meet such profiteering apart from the poor ratepayers who have the other side of the axe to grind ?—Yours, etc., V. R. CRAWSHAW. Invercargill, September 10, 1936.

To the Editor.

Sir, —Let us now once again very strongly advise the ratepayers of Southland to vote accepting the Government’s present generous offer to take over the Southland Electric Power Board scheme, debts and liabilities. The Postal Department, the Railways, etc., are under the control of the Government, and so much the better. Monowai has done well for a time, but the increasing population and growing demands for electric power and lights need wise consideration. If full control is given to the Government it can as time goes on link up with Waitaki and Coleridge and obtain a great reserve force of light and power from there. If we turn the Government proposal down it will use that power for the benefit of the north of Otago, and at least South Canterbury, and our opportunities are thus gone for ever. The Government is at present giving us the first and best offer. It cannot do so again for if we prove dull and sleepy there are many up Canterbury way that are wide awake. Uris offer is given us but once. If we turn it down, it stays down. If we accept it then an advantageous prospect is ready for us and lasting benefits are ours. There is nothing unfair in that. We should be fair also to ourselves notwithstanding the silver-tongued orators crying to put us off our guard until it is too late. Then, perhaps, they will devise an endless lot of plans and schemes at our expense, not at their own. Someone said that they could arrange it so that our local needs in electricity would cost us no more per unit. That is easily done by raising rates and taxation—robbing Peter to pay Paul. Why be turned aside from our real interests by such dodges, schemes or trash? Our very best plan is to allow these orators to talk to their own shadows, and look after our own best affairs for ourselves and never mind them at all. We do not suggest to vote or not to vote for the Government politically, but rather in this matter of Immense importance to vote for the Government taking over the whole of the Southland Power Board matters. Then things will be better understood and I am sure the Government will be ever ready to help us in matters needing their help or co-ordination. Yours, EARNEST JACK. Invercargill, September 9, 1936.

To the Editor.

Sir, —So much has been said and written on this matter that the ratepayer who foots the bill must be surfeited. The board is in the comfortable position of fighting the ratepayer with his own money. No doubt the various trips to Wellington, including the last one when persons other than board members were present will be paid for by the board. Possibly, too, the cost of convening, advertising and addressing meetings will be similarly provided for. On. top of this there is the cost of the circulars—one to city ratepayers and the other to country ratepayers—which will also be paid for with ratepayers’ money. I have read both circulars and if ratepayers only study them carefully they will find in them the most convincing reasons why they should haste to hand the whole concern over to the State, and so get rid of a tragic blunder, and all its needless and avoidable costs. Thanks to your efforts, sir, so commendably backed up by the Ratepayers Committee, the board has been reluctantly compelled to disclose much that has heretofore been unknown to the owners of the scheme —the ratepayers. In their efforts to retain the scheme the board has—thanks to the blundering tactics of Mr McChesney and others not connected with the board-—sur-passed anything it has been guilty of heretofore in the issue of the circulars referred to. If need be I could point out many glaring misleading and even false statements in their latest effort. But why worry? I do not think the public will be so easily hoodwinked.— Yours etc., „ RATEPAYER. Athol, September 10, 1936.

To the Editor.

Sir, —I notice that some of the members seem to be rather dubious about retaining their seats in the Power Board office. Their statements, if not convincing, are amusing. In to-day’s paper we have the board speakers saying that had it not been for the Government refusing to honour Mr Coates’s promise, the Power Board would have been in a good position. There is a telegram in the same issue, signed by Mr Coates, stating that he never gave a definite promise. What can any reasonably intelligent man say to statements like that? I see Mr Carswell has got out the Bible. I think he would do better by throwing it at his opponents, as I am sure not many would care to listen to his reading of it. Now another point to show how hard pressed the board is for arguments: Mr McChesney said that a petition had been made out, and despite the fact that there were 20,000 on the roll, only 2000 had signed it. Now this is where the Bible may be of use. If a member of the board was compelled to take the Bible in his right hand, and swear that to the best of his belief 2000 had signed the petition, then, and then only, could we

have had confidence in them to stick to what they said. I think that it would be a fine thing for some of the farmers to inquire of some of the board’s patriots what support they gave the board. I venture to say that the most active advocates will be found on the £4 guarantee, with no rate to pay. I suppose that some of the most inquisitive will be asking if I am a froth-blower, like some of my opponents. When power came in, I spent £lB3 putting in my service line (30 chains) for range, water heater, house wiring and other things. I was on the £l4 guarantee, but for six or seven years my account to the board was £2B or £3O, with a rate on top of that. So I have rather more than a seat in the Power Board office to fight for.— Yours, etc. WILLIAM DAWSON. Invercargill, September 10, 1936. To the Editor. Sir, —I have just received an urgent circular asking me to sign it and return it to the Southland Electric Power Board. What do they take us for? May I ask- who is going to pay for all this? I suppose the same poor innocent fools that watched the contractors putting in die poles at a price. Well the relief workers’ wages are a mere song to it. I have watched the work in all its stages, even to lopping branches and leaving my fences broken down, and when asked to reduce the guarantee on our milking machine, they promised to take off £2 but afterwards sent us notice to say that the board could not see its way clear to reduce the price. I have just got a receipt for 9/9 meter rent How many times have I paid the full price of the meter? The milking machine has lain idle ever since they refused me. The electric range I wish I had never seen and at the first sign of a storm my lights flicker and go out. —Yours, etc., NO THANK YOU