CANTERBURY PAPER MILL PROPOSAL

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29200, 10 May 1960, Page 8

CANTERBURY PAPER MILL PROPOSAL

Industries Committee’s Decision

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, May 9. Decision on the application made by New Zealand Forest Products, Ltd., on behalf of Canterbury Pulp and Paper Mills, Ltd., to establish a pulp and paper mill in Canterbury was given today by the Licensed Industries Committee. The applicant company has been given the opportunity of deciding whether it prefers an immediate dismissal or a deferment for six months.

The purpose of a deferment would be to allow Forest Products an opportunity of satisfying the committee: (1) whether there is a continuing supply of suitable timber available to it in Canterbury without prejudicing supplies for other uses, and at an economical price; and (2) whether there is a firm intention to proceed with the proposals which were the basis of the application.

The judgment, signed by Messrs R. B. Gray (chairman of the committee!, N. T. Gillespie and M. J. Mason, said that the committee had been confronted with a difficulty in the manner in which the application was presented. This also made it difficult for other manufacturers likely to be affected to make a proper case in opposition to the application.

“The original application was in effect for the right to make all types of paper and board with the exception of newsprint, and for the right to make mechanical and semi-chemical pulps,” says the judgment. “No information was supplied as to exactly what types of paper it was proposed to make, although it obviously was not intended to make all the types asked for. This became evident during the hearing when the applicant agreed to exclude certain types which it could not or did not desire to make.” The judgment added that, apart from board and pulp, the applicant intended to make, in the main, kraft papers of types already being made by the New [Zealand Forest Products, Ltd. at Kinleith or which might be ma . by that company under its licence. The applicant also wanted the right to make all other papers capable of being made on the machine it proposed to install so that it might be in a position to consider accepting any orders it might receive for [such papers. “Denial Of Opportunity”

“It is appreciated that the applicant is not ,in a position to give much information about these papers,” says the judgment. "At the same time the committee is conscious of the fact that this lack of information has had the effect of denying Caxton Paper Mills, Ltd., and New Zealand Paper Mills, Ltd., the opportunity of making a complete case to the committee as to the effect the granting of the application might have on their businesses. It has also hindered the committee in its consideration of this matter and of what benefits might be likely to accrue to customers.”

The judgment also suggested that on the evidence it could not be sure of the applicant company’s intention. Sir David Henry managing director of Forest Products, Ltd., had stated that it was necessary to get the licence before proceeding with full investigation. Reference was also made to the evidence stating that a machine now on order for Kinleith would be transferred to Canterbury “subject to our being satisfied beyond question that the proposal is a sound one."

“This evidence indicates a lack of appreciation on the part of the applicant as to the role of the committee and of the applicant’s responsibility to satisfy the committee as to the soundness of its proposals and their likely effect on the economic welfare of the country,” says the judgment. “If the applicant is not yet satisfied that its proposals are sound or practicable from the company’s point of view, how can the committee be satisfied that they are likely to contribute to the economic welfare of New Zealand? Supply Of Timber "The committee’s greatest concern is in regard to the supply of timber in the Canterbury area," says the judgment. "Unless it is proven that supplies are available in adequate quantity on a continuing basis, then there is no purpose in granting the application—as it has been adduced from the evidence that the applicant would not wish to proceed if the scope of the proposal was substantially reduced. Nor would it be in the national interest to do so. "The evidence on the avail-

ability of timber supplies was conflicting. The committee L not satisfied either that there is or that there is not likely to be a continuing supply of 21m surer feet of suitable timber available for a pulp mill in Canterbury Tn the light of the evidence of the Director of Forests, the committee certainly cannot assume that such supplies would be available to the applicant. It still remains for the applicant to satisfy the committee on this fundamental matter.’’

The judgment says that had the applicant been able to satisfy the committee that a continuing and economic supply of timber existed in Canterbury, and that the intentions of the applicant were firm, the committee would have been inclined to grant the application, subject to certain conditions, including one limiting the time in which manufacture must commence.