THE ARAPUNI SCHEME.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18618, 14 July 1930, Page 8

THE ARAPUNI SCHEME.

Mr Coates Wants Inquiry. QUESTION FOR ENGINEERS. ANOTHER MILLION SUGGESTED. By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, July 12. Interviewed before his departure for the south, with regard to the breakdown of the Arapuni hydro-electric scheme, the Hon. J. G. Coates first expressed his regret that the unfortunate occurrence was being exploited in some quarters for party political purposes. This was much to be deplored, as it led to a great deal of distortion of facts. All sensible men, said Mr Coates, would feel that the position called for investigation and cool, impartial judgment by experts, with a view to deciding what was now the best thing to be done. If it was*suggested that the late Reform Government was in any way to blame for authorising the work, then a fair and proper course for the present Government was that suggested by himself in the House — namely, the setting up of a Royal Commission, with a -Judge of the Supreme Court as president, to inquire into the whole ma Ler. Mr Coates said he hoped that in fairness to himself and his colleagues this course would be followed. It should be remembered, he said, that the Massey Cabinet did not adopt the scheme until the country had been thoroughly examined by experts again and again and again. Most careful and painstaking sci tifle tests were made by engineers and a geologist. These preliminary investigations extended over several years. It should be remembered, further, that reports of the New Zealand engineers and geologist were subsequently favourably commented upon by qualified men sent out by a number of great British and other overseas firms who came to examine the country before submitting renders for the job. If their judgment

was mistaken, and this had not been finally demonstrated, the only conclusion to be drawn was that even the most highly qualified experts may not I be infallible, but all that any Government or responsible Minister could do j was to secure the fullest investigation jby experts to ensure that every precaution had been taken to check calcu- ! lations, and then to base the Government’s decision on the result.

Mr Coates reviewed the reports of the Chief Electrical Engineer (Mr Parry), in 1920, showing how extensive had been the investigations over a period of four years. He recalled that in 1921 the results of the investigations were submitted to a committee, whose recommendations were finally adopted. This committee consisted of the late Mr W. H. Morton (then engineer to the Wellington City Council), Mr James Marshbanks (engineer to Wellington Harbour Board), Mr F.W. Furkert (then senior inspecting engineer of the Public Works Department), and Dr Henderson (head of the Geological {Survey Department). All this committee’s recommendations were adopted, and it was clear that every possible precaution was taken to assure the soundness of the undertaking before the scheme was finally adopted. Questioned about Armstrong Whitworth’s withdrawal from their contract in 1927, Mr Coates pointed out that this was not because of any doubt regarding the scheme in general. The dispute was confined to the question of de-watering the" foundations of the power house. They contended that it was impossible to accomplish this, but the Public Works Department thereupon successfully accomplished it. Even Mr Holmes’s criticism was concerned with the dam site, and did not touch the point at which the trouble had now occurred.

With regard to the cost of the scheme, Mr Coates remarked that although the total expenditure amounted to £2,287,000 it should not be overlooked that £425,000 of this was spent on transmission lines, and sub-stations. This sum would have been required in any case, whatever source of supply had been adopted. The actual cost of the Arapuni headworks and generating plant (the whole of the works at Arapuni), was £1,862,000, including £243,000 for interest charges while the works were under construction.

“There are competent engineers who declare,” said Mr Coates, “that the expenditure of another million on Arapuni would put it into working order again, and safeguard it against almost any contingency in future. That is purely a question for experts, but it should be made clear that if the expenditure of another million would give us a permanently satisfactory job from an engineering standpoint, such expenditure would be justified economically. On the basis of comparative costs per kilowatt, Arapuni would still be most economic source of power supply available, but of course, the whole question turns on the geological and engineering prospects, which no layman can estimate. The engineers of the Department know far more than any outsider of the difficulties met with in the past, and likely to be met with in the future. These officers should be asked to express their considered views as to what steps should now be taken at Arapuni. That is the first necessity. Then, in order that public opinion may be satisfied and political colour avoided, the Government should accede to a request for a Royal Commission to investigate and make public the whole history of the scheme from its inception.”