CANTERBURY FORESTS

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25878, 10 August 1949, Page 8

CANTERBURY FORESTS

MR GILLESPIE CRITICISES STATE SERVICE

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, August 9. The administration of the State Forest Service in the Eyrewell and Balmoral forests was criticised by Mr W. H Gillespie (Opposition, Hurunui) m the Forestry Bill debate in the House of Representatives to-day. The Commissioner of Forests (Mr C. F. Skinner), when he replied to the debate, discussed the failure of novel sawmill equipment at Balmoral. Mr Gillespie complained that a garage built in the Eyrewell State forest had cost £1584 and the labour contract involved was for £857. His information was that the men who built the garage took £4O a week from it. “We cannot expect other men working for the State Forest Service to be satisfied when that sort of thing is going on,” he said.

Mr GiUespie complained that by building State houses near the Eyrewell forest the State anight be putting tenants into danger. He also complained that the State was using heavy motor vehicles on county roads servin» the North Canterbury forest areas without paying heavy traffic fees while the property itself was not rateable and the State itself did not pay royalties on timber from its own forests. The Amuri County Council was faced with building a new road at a cost of £4OO a mile..

Mr Skinner: With a big subsidy from the State. Balmoral Mill

Mr Gillespie said the State Forest Service had 'made a big mistake in allowing a mill to be set up in the Balmoral forest “at huge expense.” That mill had gone out of existence and the money had gone down the drain. Those who backed the ideas in equipment used in the privately-own-eu mill in the Balrrioral forest did not try them out first and deserved all they got, said Mr Skinner. The equipment was largely a “Heath Robinson outfit.” The mill failed and guarantees were forfeited. A local miller had been the successful tenderer for the salvage of Balmoral wind-blown timber. He started, to erect a mill, in partnership Mr Skinner believed, with another firm. Only one machine, an English log frame, was standard equipment. The rest had not been tried out before. The result was that the mill could not have succeeded but the State, against whom so many allegations of interference were made', could not direct to a successful tenderer what type of machinery should be installed.