ARAPUNI.
MEMBERS’VIEWS. T— \ PROFESSOR HORNELL’S REPORT. - POSSIBILITY OF RESUMPTION. (Times Correspondent.) WELLINGTON. Wednesday. Satisfaction with the report of Professor Hornell on failure of the Arapuni hydro-electric works was expressed when the document came up for hrief comment in the House of Representatives to-day. The Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. J. G. Coates.-in moving that the report be referred to the Government for favourable consideration, said that most people would be pleased with the report, which should allay public anxiety concerning the scheme. He was of the opinion that the report definitely endorsed the policy of developing the Arapuni scheme. Very severe criticism had been levelled at the Reform administration for the part it had played in administering works. He- was sure that those who knew the engineers of the Public Works Department felt confidence before Professor Hornell reported that they were men well erfulpped to be entrusted with large development works such as Arapuni. The report contained overwhelming evidence that there was no justification for the adverse opinions which had been expressed against the officers of the department. It would appear from the report, said Mr Coates, that the expenditure of some £500.000 might be necessary before the .works could be definitely relied upon to carry on for all time. It was not suggested, however, that that amount of money would be necessary to set the turbines going again. He assumed from the information which had been given that it might be possible, indeed, that it was probable, that a very much less amount would be necessary for the purpose. He understood detailed costs were being worked out and that specifications in line with the professor’s recommendations were already in hand to enable the Minister of Public Works to give authority for getting on with the repair work. “Alarmist Statements.”
There was one aspect of Arapuni to which some attention must be given, and that was the action of the previous Government in the initiation of the scheme, and reflections as to the bona fldes of that Government in putting the work In hand. It was mot right that any public men should be subjected to unfair imputations such as had been made. He believed that the action taken by the Minister of Public Works, who was in office at that time, should be subjected to the closest investigation by some impartial person. Alarmists had made statements, coloured statements, which had no foundation. No detailed examinations had been made by critics who included the engineers and one former engineer of the Public Works Department. He was not referring to Mr R. W. Holmes, who was no more concerned about Arapuni than the average member of the public. Th&t individual was more concerned with other projects and it was more from, pique than anything else that he had made statements of an alarmist nature at the time of the 1928 General Election. His statements had been made for political purposes.
Mr J. S. Fletcher (Independent — Grey Lynn) : Who was it? Mr Coates: The honourable gentleman knows him I expect. Mr- Fletcher: I would like to. Mr Coates: I have had him in my room more than once and he has been shown the door.
In conclusion Mr Coates said he believed there were men in the Public Works Department from the head .downwards who were well qualified to / make recommendations to the Gov- * ernment, although he had no fault to find with the action of the Government in obtaining the expert advice of Professor Hornell, The Leaky Dam.
Mr Fletcher said Professor Hornell’s report made the definite statement that the foundations of the dam were leaking. He had seen a letter from a very highly qualified engineer who said that was an alarming statement.
The dam was leaking despite the fact that there was, comparatively speaking, very little water impounded there. Professor Hornell said he did not know the extent of the leaks or their location, yet he talked about grouting them. One might almost talk about grouting the Atlantic o«ean.
“An Unsatisfactory Report.” Mr. Semple (Labour —Wellington East) described the report as unsatisfactory, declaring that Professor Hornell had had no experience of volcanic country. He had riot seen scheme working, and the report offered no real remedies. There was no guarantee that the scheme would be saved. The pouring of concrete into cracks would not solve difficulties. The report contained many contradctions and no practical suggestions. He believed there might be other means of rectifying the trouble and that there were capable men in New Zealand who could advise on that. “ A little knowledge ” quoted Mr. R. A. Wright (Reform —Wellington Suburbs) “ is' a dangerous thing.” Mr. P. Fraser (Labour —Wellington Central) “You had better leave the subject alone then.” (Loud laughter.) Mr. Wright “ I am not going to deal with the subject for that very reason, because I don’t understand it and neither does the member for Wellington Central nor the member for Wellington East.” / He took it for granted said' Mr. Wright that as -intelligent men the members of the Government had made the best selection of an expert to report on Arapuni that they could discover in the world. Whether Mr., Semple was an expert or not did not concern him, but he believed that Professor Hornell had made his report conscientiouslyjielieving that the works could be repaired, liis qualifications were undoubted. The speaker said he did not believe that a man like Professor Hornell would stake disreputation for the sake of what he would recieve from the Government. “I would like lo hear Professor Hornells opinion on the members for Wellington East,” he said. “ I think that Professor would get.the best of the argument.” Mr. Semple, “ I am prepared to meet him at any time.” Mr. Wright said he thought it unwise to criticise those whose qualifications were only of a practical nature and were, not on a par with those of a man like Professor Hornell.
Only a Gamble. Mr Fletcher said if the dam needed strengthening the people of the Waikato had good reason for feeling uneasy. It was only a gamble that repairs could be expected in the way recommended by Professor Hornell. If there was a reasonable prospect that the work would not prove successful, no further expenditure should be incurred. d'he acting-Prime Minister, the Hon. E. A. Ransom declared that the Government would not enter into any expenditure until definite plans had been prepared for tire consideration of the Minister of Public WorksMr Fletcher: “But expenditure has been authorised.” Mr Ransom: “I don’t know what is in the mind- of the honourable member. Unquestionably expenditure will not be proceeded with until we have definite plans and .proposals in regard to the work.” Mr Fletcher conjectured that no plans had been prepared, or that the plans prepared were such that no engineer of standing could pass judgment on them. Mr Fletcher said that even after the expenditure of £600,000, the professor would not give a guarantee that the scheme would be sound.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WT19301023.2.47
Bibliographic details
Waikato Times, Volume 108, Issue 18157, 23 October 1930, Page 7
Word Count
1,172ARAPUNI. Waikato Times, Volume 108, Issue 18157, 23 October 1930, Page 7
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Waikato Times. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.