POWER SCHEME

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

POWER SCHEME

City’s Electricity

Profits

MINISTER REPLIES TO STATEMENTS .

(Special to The Times.) Wellington, September 19.

In connection with statements warning Invercargill ratepayers on the grounds of loss of present electricity profits against voting for the transfer of the Southland power undertaking tj the Government, the Hon. W. Nash, Minister of Finance, stated to-day that his attention had been drawn to these statements and that they were evidently based on a serious misapprehension of the facts. “In the first instance,” stated the Minister, “the poll, which closes on September 28 at 1 p.m., contains no proposal whatever for the taking over of the city’s reticulation—as I have stated previously. If after the poll the Government takes over ■ the Power Board’s business, the city will take its electric power in bulk as previously and make what charges it considers fit. With regard to the distribution of that power, the city ratepayers will, however, immediately receive permanent relief to the extent of about £3OOO annually in rates. Additional relief in regard to any properties outside the city on which they may be paying rates and retain their electricity profits. Comparison with Christchurch. “11 at a later date,” continued the Minister, “and after the Government has taken over the Power Board area, the question of unifying the control of electricity distribution in the area should arise, it can be considered on its merits and with regard to the wishes of the consumers and ratepayers and the financial responsibilities of the City Council. That is a matter for the future, but it certainly seems to me that all ratepayer-consumers, and even those ratepayers who are not consumers, should be vitally interested in the comfox-t and economy resulting from the possible provision by the Government of electricity sex-vice at a cost per unit lower than the present high rates. As a result of these high rates the city has only 619 electric ranges as against 41,812 in Christchurch (whose population is 95,000 against Invercargill’s 22,000) and only one electric water-heater as against 5902 in Christchurch. The average charge in Invercargill exceeds a unit as against slightly less than a penny in Christchurch.”

Meeting At Wyndham

PRESENTATION TO MR RICE

(From Our Correspondent.)

At a meeting attended by about 40 ratepayers of Wyndham and the surrounding districts in the Masonic Hall, Wyndham, on Saturday evening, Messrs J. T. Carswell, W. McChesney and S. Rice, on behalf of the Southland Electric Power Board, gave addresses following the lines of those given at other centres, urging the retention of the sclxeme by the board. Mr Henderson Hunter, chairman of the Town Board, presided. Mr McChesney said that the board’s representatives had now covered most of the impoxlant centres in Southland, and had been given gratifying receptions everywhere. He was sure that there was now a decided swing towards retention, especially in Invercargill. He also referred to the refusal of Messrs H. J. Farrant, R. P. Meek and J. W. Smith to debate the question on a public platform. They had, he said, cold feet and would not face it, relying on impressions made earlier. Before his speech Mr Carswell, who dealt mainly with the sinking funds, thanked Mr Rice on behalf of the board for the wonderful way in which he had placed the arguments for retention over the air in the broadcast debate with the Hon. W. Nash. Mr Rice had fairly “cleaned up” his opponent, he said. He then presented Mr Rice with the book rest which he had used for his broadcast. It was inscribed as follows: “Broadcast debate, 16th September, 1936. For the Power Board—Major S. Rice. For the Government —The Hon. W. Nash. 4YA and 4ZP.” Mi- Rice, in reply, said he had been inundated with congratulatory letters and telegrams from all ovex- New Zealand, one coming from a member of the Hawke’s Bay Power Board. Their case was the future case of other- power boards in the Dominion, said Mr Rice. Mr Rice made an attack on the policy adopted by the Editor of The Southland Times. He said that the Petition Committee had been backed up by an importation of The Southland Times from Christchurch—a man who had not enough first-hand knowledge of Southland to be a qualified authority. The Petition Committee had made the balls and he had fired them. The Editor had said it was the policy of his paper. In that case the policy of The Southland Times must have undergone a decided change. He urged his audience not to hand over their scheme to satisfy “this Socialistic Government.” Mr Rice dealt at length with what he said were the evils of Socialism. It was worse still, he said, when the Cabinet was mainly composed not of New Zealanders, but of Australians. On the motion of Messrs W. L. G. McKenzie, of Edendale, and W. Frame, of Mataura Island, a vote of confidence in the board was carried unanimously. There was only one question, which was satisfactorily answered.

[What is known as the Petition Committee was the outcome of a public meeting which was held in Invercargill on July 10 on the requisition of the following ratepayers: Drs J. A. Pottinger and F. O. Mac Gibbon, Messrs J. W. Smith, J. L. McG. Watson, F. A. Steans, Thomas J. Boyce, D. W. McKay, J. P. Butler, C. A. Henderson, A. Peterson, J. S. Price, W. Aitchison, R. P. Meek, Thomas Meredith, W. H. Birch, P. B. Witt, Alexander Guise, William A. Brown, Mortimer Hishon, Francis G. O’Beirne, A. H. Whelham, Alan F. Clark, J. L. D. Duncan, J. H. Thomas, Thomas Rankin, W. J. Erskine, James Manson, James Holland, H. J. Farrant, Frank Anderson, William Fraser, James Anderson, James G. Wade, A. M. Irving, David Marshall, A. H. Mackrell, T. Lumsden, W. G. Gilchrist, Edward Edie, M. N. Hyndman, D. H. Luke, I. Copeland, G. N. Mackie, George F. Watson, Eustace Russell, Charles B. Rout, M. J. Henderson and W. George. The meeting was called as a protest against the action of the Southland Electric Power Board “in refusing to take a plebiscite and in rejecting what we consider a generous offer by the Government.” The Editor of The Southland Times has been interviewed from time to time by members of the Petition Committee in the same way as he has been interviewed by the chairman and members of the Power Board, members of the Retention Committee,,

and many others interested in the present controversy. The Southland Times favoured acceptance of the State’s present offer to take over the power scheme long before the Petition Committee was ever formed; in the main members of the Petition Committee appear to hold the same opinion, though their primary object was to secure the taking of a referendum. But the suggestion that there has been any collusion between The Southland Times and the Petition Committee, or that the Petition Committee has influenced the editorial policy of this paper in the slightest degree or has been given preference in the news or correspondence columns, is a false and mischievous suggestion which we completely deny. —Editor, The Southland Times.]

An error occurred in the published report of the meeting addressed by members of the Southland Power Board at Pukerau. It was stated that Mr A. Herron was the seconder of Mr F. F. Trapski’s motion favouring the sale of the Southland electric power scheme to the Government. Our correspondent now reports that this was not so, and that the motion was seconded by someone else.