ONEKAKA IRON WORKS

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23417, 26 August 1941, Page 8

ONEKAKA IRON WORKS

CASE BEFORE WARDEN’S

COURT

FORFEITURE OF MINING PRIVILEGES SOUGHT

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, August 25. The action by the Crown in the Warden’s Court to secure the forfeiture of mining privileges against the Onekaka and two other companies was continued to-day. Walter Brcmley, secretary of the State Iron and Steel Department, continued his evidence on interviews with Watson, chairman of Pacific Steel. The two proposals, said witness, suggested!, a guarantee up to £2,500,000, and witness had suggested to Watson that the Government might just as well establish the works themselves. Witness indicated that'the proposals were discussed frequently, and said that in January, 1936, Mr Nash, speaking at the conclusion of a meeting of Ministers, said the proposals set out in Watson’s scheme would not be acceptable to the Government, and drew Watson’s attention to a very definite statement by Brasserts as to the kind of interest the Government should have in any steel works that were established. He appreciated the work Pacific Steel had done up to that time, and suggested that they should spend no more money; but if they would set out their detailed expenditure, the Ministers present would urge the Government to make payment in respect of such of the expenditure as might be useful to the Government in establishing a steel works. He did not know if the Government would establish works; but said he would investigate the matter further.

Witness said Watson seemed upset, and stated to witness that he had spent more than £15,000 to date, and asked how he would get on if he put a modified scheme before the Government. Witness replied that it looked as though Pacific Steel had finished, and had been asked for their bill. He assured Watson that it would be Very unlikely that he would get a" return of any mcney expended after the meeting with the Ministers. Witness mentioned other proposals, and stated that Watson sought his advice in 1938 as to what he should do, as he was making no progress with the schemes to develop the industry. Witness replied that his best policy was to take advantage of the offer made by the three Ministers in 1936. Bromley said he had no reason to doubt that in November, 1935, the Government’s view was that there was a prospect of the early reopening of the Onekaka works, and according to New Zealand geologists there were more than 60,000,000 tons of ore, containing 50 per cent, pure iron .available. It would not be proper for witness to produce the correspondence between Mr Nash and Brasserts when Mr Nash was in London, correspondence between Mr Pascoe and Brasserts while, Mr Pascoe was in London, and correspondence between Mr Nash and Mr Pascoe and the New Zealand Government relating to Brasserts while Mr Nash and Mr Pascoe were in London. At the instance of the warden, witness later undertook to interview the Minister for Iron and Steel (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan) to see whether -he would agree to release the files. Witness refused to produce a report received from Brasserts in 1937, as the ■ Government had not yet released it to anyone. Mr/Fell undertook to see if the Minister would allow the report to be produced. Witness said he did not knew why the Government had not given -the 1937 report to the receivers. It was immediately after the passing of the act in 1938 that the Government notified the British Iron and Steel Federation of its intention to establish an iron and steel industry in New Zealand.

Neman John Murdock McLeod, chief mechanical engineer to the Public Works Department, said he madean inspection of the plant at Onekaka this year, and found the whole plant, with the, exception of the blower, obsolete.

Mr Cooke objected to the evidence of any witness as to what he said or observed after the passing of the act. The objection was noted. Witness estimated the cost of putting the plant in running order in April, 1941, at £9OOO. He estimated the cost of putting the plant in order in March, 1938, at £7650. The hearing will be continued tomorrow. , . ■