TALK OF NATIONALISATION

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 53, Issue 3802, 31 August 1936, Page 5

TALK OF NATIONALISATION

DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC POWER.

LOCAL BOARD CONTROL MENACED.

The Power Boards and Electric Supply Authorities Association was occupied on Thursday with a discussion ot the merits and demerits of nationalisation of the electrical industry, following upon a remit on tho subject, moved by Mr L. B. Hutton on behalf of the engineers’ branch association. The remit was carried in the following form: "That this conference regrets that criticism has led to erroneous pronouncements in various parts of the country on a national industry that has been built up through many difficulties to a commendably successful stage of development. "That it is confidently of the opin ion that local control ot distribution is democratic and sound, and will ultimately give the best results. “That .a .committee be set up to investigate the whole position -and place before the Minister information regarding the present development in this country and in relation to similar schemer, elsewhere.” Mr Hutton said they could be assured on the highest authority that the industry had reached 90 per cent of the people of New Zealand. No ciaim could be upheld that the association had not functioned admirably, cr that any greater degree of success could have been expected. The proposed committee of investigation should make its findings public, so that there would be no doubt about the success ot those who were administering the industry. The president, Mr J, A. Nash, reminded the conference that the Minister of Public Works had promised to consult the association before making any move that would affect the industry. Further, the Minister’s announcement that the Government had not so far given a moment’s consideration to_tbe question of nationalisation had been published. However, legislation nowadays was introduced with startling suddenness. Mr P. Guy, Manawatu-Oroua, said nationalisation would solve the difficulties of the smaller boards, which were surrounded by larger authorities charging lower rates. What was required, said Mr J. O’Shea, Wellington, was evidence to show what the local authorities had done. It was the work of the local boards that had made hydro-electric schemes possible. With a Government monopoly the people would have no redress against the charges for electric supply.

The working of the Victorian State Electricity Commission was described by Mr H. F. Toogood, Wellington. "They have a very fine building,” he said, “but their rates are twice as high as New Zealand’s, and their rural service is simply not comparable with ours." A county scheme operating in New South Wales was more successful, because local members were interested, and were potential advocates of the use of electricity. Ontario had been mentioned as having a lower domestic rate than New Zealand. But that commission received a subsidy from the State, a form of assistance not sought by New Zealand boards. He would not like to see the industry taken out of the local authorities' hands.