Power Board to Have New Franchise

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 796, 17 October 1929, Page 7

Power Board to Have New Franchise

MUNICIPAL ELECTORS AMENDMENT TO ACT THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Wed. With the passing of amendments to the Auckland Electrical Power Board Amendment Bill, the municipal electors’ franchise wilt obtain at all elections of the Auckland Power Board, also such elector may be elected a member of the boartf. This means the removal of the former ratepayer’s qualification, but there is a clause in the new Act to provide that votes on loans and rates may be given by ratepayers only. The elections will be held in the future every four years. The amendments were moved by Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Auckland Suburbs), and his clause relating to voting aroused a warm discussion on democratic principles, and finally a division. The new clauses were added by a vote of 44 to 20. On the franchise issue, the voting was almost entirely on party lines, Government, Labour, and Independent members, and Mr. J. A. Young (Hamilton) voting in favour, and Reform members against. Mr. Mason’s chief amendment was to the effect that the original ratepaj’ers’ franchise be abolished, and the municipal franchise of other local bodies substituted. AT VARIANCE Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said that in the Local Bills Committee it had been decided that the franchise of the Auckland Power Board was at variance with that of all other local authorities in the Dominion, being restricted to ratepayers. Mr. A. Harris (Waitemata) thought that the people concerned should know of the amendment, and asked what was the attitude of the Minister in charge of the Bill, (the Hon. J. B. Donald) toward the amendment. Mr. Mason said that he had sent a copy of the amendment to the Auckland Power Board immediately it had been printed. He had heard nothing from the board. Mr. Donald said that the promoters of the Bill were opposed to the amendment, and he naturally, as member in charge, had to oppose it. He thought it the best thing for the House to vote on the question. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) took it that the Minister personally was not averse from extending the franchise. New Zealand owed its democratic franchise to Sir George Grey and his Liberal successors, but a Reform Minister had been responsible for extending the franchise to local body elections. It was, he thought, Mr. F. M. B. Fisher. The Minister of Health, the Hon. A. J. Stallworthy, supported Mr. McCombs In urging that democratic principles should be adhered to. The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. J. G. Coates, held that ratepayers who had with their money brought the power board up to its present state of efficiency Mr. W. Lee Martin (Raglan): Ring off! Mr. Coates continued amid a volley of interjections from Mr. Martin, and asked if democracy had been jeopardised by the restricted franchise. Mr. Martin held that the board had penalised every country power board. He knew, because he was a member of a power board. Mr. Coates asked why should the question of franchise enter to affect the efficiency of a successful undertaking. Mr. Stallworthy had made a fair statement, but made no explanation of it. He also was surprised at Mr. Mason moving the amendment. He was usually levelheaded and progressive. MR. COATES’S COURAGE Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) admired Mr. Coates’s courage. He reminded him of the bull on the railway line. His courage was admirable, but his judgment was on the other side of the fence altogether. Mr. Coates knew the circumstances of the passing of the main Act. There were 4S members only in the House, out of 80. Why should users of power not be entitled to legislate as to how the power undertakings should be controlled? Mr. J. S. Fletcher (Grey Lynn) said that he had one criticism only to make. The amendment did not go far enough. He thought the franchise should be Parliamentary. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) was against the amendment, and proceeded to state his case amid cries of “Let’s vote” and “Aye.” Mr. Harris said that it was not fair of Mr. Savage to say the original Act was passed by a thin and tired House. The Bill had been closely investigated by the Local Bills Committee. Several other members spoke, and finally the division was taken, the amendment being carried by 44 votes to 20. The division list was: For the amendment (44): Armstrong McCombs Atmore McDonald Barnard McDougall Black McPherson Bodkin Makitanare* Carr Martin Chapman Mason Clinkard Munns Cobbe Munro de la Perrel) Murdoch Fletcher Parry Forbes Poison Fraser Ransom Hawke Savage Healy Semple Hogan Stallworthy H. E. Holland Sullivan Howard Taverner Jenkins ©itch Jordan Wilford uangstone Wilkinson Kyle Young Against the amendment (20): Ansell Kyle, Bitchener i.inKlater Coates Lysnar Dickie Macmnlan Donald Massey Field Lash Hall Sykes Hamilton 3} aite Harris Williams Jones Wright When the Bill was being read the third time, Mr. D. Jones (MidCanterbury) claimed that Mr. Mason’s amendment had not complied with the standing orders, as there had been no advertisement or intimation of additions to the Bill to those concerned. Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said ! that Mr. Jones was wrong, as the I standing orders had been amended to provide against just such a point as Mr. Jones had raised. (Laughter.) Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) said that the Standing orders had been complied with, and Mr. Speaker ruled that way also. ,