The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. “Luceo Non Uro.” MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1936. Party Politics And The Referendum

Southland Times, Issue 23000, 21 September 1936, Page 6

The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. “Luceo Non Uro.” MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1936. Party Politics And The Referendum

It is unfortunate that the Southland Electric Power Board’s advocates have chosen to resort to party politics in what they regard as a “fight,” on Southland’s behalf, against the Government. It is also not a little astonishing; for as a member has stated, the board was willing only a few weeks ago to transfer- the scheme to the State without more ado provided the Government would give a relatively small additional concession. Now, to judge by recent speeches and circulars the board appears to have convinced itself that it would be betraying the province to hand over the scheme on any conditions at all, and the Labour Government is being attacked right and left, and given nothing but discreditable motives. Mr Stanley Rice in his broadcast address the other night, went so far as to compare the taking-over of the scheme by the Government to the delivery of a child, “bound and helpless, mto the grip of a relentless fury, marching step by step with Fascist Germany in its determination to socialize not only the products of the soil and the factory, but also the intimacies of private lives and private relationships.” In a letter which we published on Saturday, a correspondent at Waipahi referred to the reading, at a meeting addressed on behalf of the board, of what he described as an “anonymous and scurrilous skit from a newspaper about ‘Comrade’ Savage.” The board, of course, is at liberty to choose its own weapons; but we doubt whether weapons of this kind do the board much credit or its cause much service. Political propaganda certainly clouds the issue, and perhaps tempts political opponents of the Government to vote blindly for the retention of the scheme as it tempts political supporters of the Govment to vote blindly for State control. But the issue on which ratepayers are casting their votes is not in any sense political; it is strictly a matter of business —will State control or a continuation of Power Board control return the richer benefits to the people of Southland? State control of electricity is nothing new, nothing to be afraid of. The State already has £13,000,000 invested in the generation and supply of electricity; and its intervention in this business was directed, and has been extended for more than 20 years past not by a Socialist Government, but by Conservative Governments. Moreover, it was an anti-Labour Government which set in motion the present negotiations; and the leaders of that Government, now in Opposition, are to-day satisfied—as they indicated in a recent debate in the House of Representatives—that the people of Southland would be wise to accept the present offer which, by the accident of office, happens to have been made by a Labour Government. We repeat that the proposal to extend State control of electricity to Southland originated with the last Government, not with the present Government; and if the Labour Party had not come into power, it is virtually certain that the National Government would have been carrying on the negotiations of the last six months, in which case, presumably, the political issue would not have been raised. Whether he supports handing over the power scheme to the State or opposes it, we sincerely hope that every ratepayer will make up his mind according to the facts as he sees them, and not be influenced by prejudice either for or against a Labour Government. To suggest that the offer to take over the scheme is an expression of Labour’s socialistic ideas, is nonsense. As Mr Nash has said, the Government hopes to give to the people of Southland two units of electricity for the price of one; and there is no reason to question the Government’s sincerity in this matter. The State can immediately do away with land rates for good and all; the board cannot. The State can abolish meter rents immediately and permanently; the board cannot. The State can supply a far greater volume of electric power than the board will ever be able to supply from Monowai; the State can, moreover, provide duplicate sources of supply. The State promises an immediate reduction in the price of power, which is more than the board can promise; and the State to-day already controls the generation of electricity in New Zealand to such an overwhelmingly large extent that there can be very little doubt of its ability to supply electricity both now and in the future more cheaply than any purely provincial system. The State, moreover, undertakes to make power for industries available at reasonable rates, and to reduce or abolish minimum charges ahd to reduce all charges as soon as it can. A vote for the State in the referendum which is now being conducted is not a vote of confidence in the Labour Party. It is a vote of confidence in the ability of the

State, already the largest producer and seller of electric power in the country, to relieve the province of a troublesome burden of debt and land rates, and give the people of Southland more electricity and cheaper electricity than the Power Board can. Without cheap electricity, the province will always be at a disadvantage compared with the northern provinces. With an abundance of cheap electricity, its prospects must be even more bright than they are to-day.