KAIAPOI POWER CHARGES

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28259, 23 April 1957, Page 2

KAIAPOI POWER CHARGES

Statement Defended By Mayor

“It appears that my statement should have been that Kaiapoi pays 12J per cent, of the capital charges and, apart from this and the one other amendment this correction entails, my statement still stands,” said the Mayor of Kaiapoi (Hr N. E. Kirk) last evening in reply to criticism by the chairman of the North Canterbury Electric Power Board (Mr H. T. Metherell) of a statement he had recently made. “As Mr Metherell well knows the real point at issue is the imposition of a 10 per cent, profit on the bulk power charges to Kaiapoi,” Mr Kirk said. “Of late all power boards supplying municipalities have demanded the insertion of a profit clause in bulk agreements as a matter of policy and it appears that this practice has the tacit, if not direct approval, of the Government.” “This policy is greedy and iniquitous because it results in an unwarranted increase in the price of electricity to a section of the consumers. It is greedy because the power boards collect both ways—once by way of the rural reticulation levy on which presumably the North Canterbury Power Board can draw from time to time, and once by way of the profit levy,” said Mr Kirk. Annual Payment “In Kaiapoi’s case the annual profit payment to the board approaches £ 1000 and this figure will increase as the town grows. The profit levy is iniquitous because although the rural reticulation levy is contributed to by all consumers the profit is borne only by the consumers of those authorities who, by geographical accident or some other misfortune, are compelled to draw power through a power board. “Does Mr Metherell claim that the economic position of the farming community has been such over the last few years that they require subsidising by the old age pensioners and the wage and salary earners who comprise the bulk of our consumers? “Surely financial necessity can not be claimed in justification of the levy when it is remembered that at least once since the profit levy has been imposed the board has declared a record profit and was only recently by advertisement exhorting investors to ‘invest in wealthy North Canterbury.’ “Because the profit clause is an unjust imposition on a sectiofi of municipal consumers the municipalities will not rest until either the power boards terminate what can only be described as a greedy and iniquitous practice or are given equal rights to purchase bulk power direct from the State at standard rate,” Mr Kirk said.