ROYAL COMMISSION WANTED

Hokitika Guardian, 16 July 1930, Page 7

ROYAL COMMISSION WANTED

ARAPUNI (FAILURE. * ' _ MR COATES DEFENDS HIS GOVERNMENT. • WELLINGTON, July 13. Before his departure for the south, Mr Coates was interviewed with regard to 'the breakdown of the AraV pimi hydro-electric scheme. He first W - expressed his regret that the unforI , 'tunate occurrence was being exploited in some quarters for party political purposes. There was much to [be deplored, as it led to a great deal of distortion of fact. 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 the fair and proper course for the present Government was that suggested by

Mr Coates 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 matter. Mr Coates hoped that, in fairness to himself and his ‘ctolleagwen, this course would be followed. . “It should be remembered,” he Mid, “that. Mr'Massey’s Cabinet did not adopt the scheme until the country had Jbeen thoroughly examined by experts. Again and again the most careful and painstaking tests! were made by engineers and geologists, -these preliminary .investigations extending over several years. It should be rememibered, /.further, that the reports of New Zealand engineers and geologists were subsequently, favourably

commented /upon by. qualified men sent 6ut by a. number > of great Brit..ish and other overseas firms who came to examine the' country' before submitting tenders for the job. If their judgment' was mistaken, and this has • not been , finally demonstrated; ‘ the,- conclusion .tp be drawn ,iB thatf pWn ... the'.most . highly qualified ' ; ; but '• all • that / any Government or; responsible Minister can do is to secure the • fullest'(investigation by experts to ensure .Vthat’' every .'■ precaution , has been taken to ■ check .■ the calculations aftifL then' to base the Government’s decision, on the result'.” m \ AD reviewed v ; the :repor|s of J tfte"‘idl^^El^nca3P; ; Engineer, v. Mr Parry; in ...showjng how. .extenhad. been the investigations over a period of, four years. He jecajled that. in,\ 1021 the results of the ix\v»»tig|fttlqha . were submitted to a whose recommendations finally were adopted, This committee consisted-.of the late Messrs W. H» Merton ■ (then engineer to the Wel-

lington City Council), James Maishbanks (engineer to the Wellington Harbour, Board), Furkert t 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 proposed 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 dewatering the foundations of the power-house. They contended that it was impossible to accomplish this, ibut 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 has now actually occurred.

With regard to the cost of the scheme, Air 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 substations. This ,sum would ha-ve 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 some 1243,000 interest charges while the uorks were under construction. “There are competent engineers who declare,” said Mr Clontes, ‘ that the expenditure of another million on Arapuni would put it into working order again and safeguard it against almost any contingency in the 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 the engineering standpoint,. ruch. expenditure Avould bo justified economically. On the basis of comparative costs per kilowatt, Arapuni would still be the most economic source of power rupr-y available. But of course, the whole question turns on the geological. a n d engineering prospects, which i o 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 acceded to the request for a Royal Commission to investigate and make public .the whole history of the scheme from its inception.”