ONEKAKA IRON PLANT

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23415, 23 August 1941, Page 10

ONEKAKA IRON PLANT

EVIDENCE IN WARDEN’S COURT

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, August 22. The case in which the Crown is proceeding for the forfeiture of mining privileges against the Onekaka* Golden Bay, and Pacific Steel companies was resurfied in the Warden’s Court at Wellington to-day. Counsel for the three companies closed their cases by putting in copies of the documents concerned in the proceedings. Called by the Crown in rebuttal, William N. Waugh, advisory and investigating officer of the Customs Department, gave evidence of a special search he made among the documents in the department, relating to allegations of dumping of pig-iron and iron pipes. He said he had specially considered the question of dumping in relation to Onekaka. Complaints related to English pipes and Indian and Australian pig-iron. The first complaint by the company was in 1930, and alleged that English manufacturers were quoting cast iron pipes to New Zealand at dumping price. The department investigated the complaint, no action to impose dumping duties being taken. There was a suggestion of dumping in respect of pipes supplied to the Dunedin City Council in 1931 by Australian manufacturers, whose tender was the lowest. The department was satisfied there was dumping, but the Minister’s opinion was that the only effect of imposing a dumping duty would be .to divert the order from Australia to England, with a consequent increase in cost to the Dunedin City Council, and with no advantage to the local industry. No action was taken. In 1932 the Onekaka company complained that a contract for pipes for the Wellington City Council had gone to Australia. After investigation the department again concluded that a dumping duly would not benefit local Industry. He knew of no case where a dumping duty was imposed on imported pipes, following a complaint by or on behalf of the Onekaka Company.

From a report obtained from the Department of Industries and Commerce, it became evident that there was no likelihood of Onekaka iron being sold at a profit in competition with English iron, which the Customs Department had already decided was not being dumped. The company had made numerous unsuccessful applications for the imposition of dumping duties.

Engineer’s Evidence

Roy Lancaster, engineer in the Public Works Department, said he had been instructed in 1940 to supply an estimate of the cost of reconditioning the Onekaka works. He estimated that the cost of restoring the works, as at March, 1938, to provide for two or three years’ running, would be £13,769 exclusive of boilers, crushing-plant, and engine-room machinery. Mr Weston objected to the evidence given that day on the ground that it was not in rebuttal and did not refer to special circumstances. Mr Sim and Mr Cooke supported Mr Weston’s objection. The Warden said he would not admit the evidence except in so far as it applied to special circumstances. The hearing will be continued to-morrow.'