‘COAST FOREST RIGHTS GIVEN ON MERITS’

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30499, 22 July 1964, Page 9

‘COAST FOREST RIGHTS GIVEN ON MERITS’

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, July 21. Although the Government does not intend to modify its policy on the processing of Westland timber in Westland, the provision calling for the processing of a minimum of 80 per cent of West Coast timber in the area is a long-term one.

In the meantime all applications for cutting rights in State forest areas on the West Coast would be treated on their merits, the Minister of Forests (Mr Gerard) said today.

It is regarded officially as unlikely that any action by Canterbury interests to charge that the restriction is a breach of the Trade Practices Act, 1958, and its amendments would be successful. The Minister of Forests is given wide powers under the Forests Act, 1949. Under it, he has the right to impose conditions before issuing licences for the cutting of State forest timber, and also the sole right to decide which of several tenders for rights over one tract of land should be accepted. There is official doubt whether the exercise of this authority by a Minister could be regarded as a “trade practice.” Two major points remain largely undefined. They are: (1) What constitutes “processing?” (2) When is the figure of 80 per cent expected to be reached on the West Coast?

The Director of Forests (Mr A. M. Poole) said today the actual degree of processing had not yet been fixed, although it was hoped ultimately the greater proportion of sawn timber produced on the West Coast would be processed in the area. Asked what his definition of processing would be, Mr Poole said it would obviously be “something beyond the rough-sawn timber stage.”

The decision would not be for him to make but would be made ministerially absed on recommendations made by the West Coast committee of inquiry, he said. Mr Poole said the amount of processing required would be dictated by experience. When tenders for long-term cutting rights were applied for in State forests* on the

West Coast, the applicant was required to submit with his tender any processing proposals he had. This submission was examined by Mr Gerard, who would satisfy himself the proposals were in accord with Government policy. Mr Poole said the 80 per cent would be a long-term aim. Asked what would happen in the case of two tenderers, one of whom said he would produce sawn timber and the other fully-proces-sed wallboard, he said only that each tender would be subject to negotiation and discussion. Some Time Mr Gerard said today Canterbury joiners had been given a clear statement of the new provisions some time ago, and had also been told that they would take some time to implement.

“They were informed that undoubtedly some businesses would be affected, but that there should be ample time

for adjustment,” Mr Gerard said. “The requirement that a minimum of 80 per cent of timber produced from future sales in Westland should be processed on the coast has been much publicised. “It is one of the strong recommendations of the West Coast Committee of Inquiry which the Government is carrying out.” Inquiry Duty The West Coast Committee of Inquiry was set up after a Cabinet decision made on May 12, 1959. The first of its four terms of reference was:— “To report upon the shortterm and long-term feasibility of developing manufacturing and other industries in the area of the West Coast that can reasonably be regarded as an economic region.” Mr R. O'Shea, of Wellington, was chairman, the other members being Messrs S. Gladstone (Greymouth), N. W. Millner (Christchurch) and E. R. Norman (Wellington). The Department of Industries and Commerce provided advisers and staff. The committee presented an interim report on September 8, 1959, and a complete report of 90 printed pages on May 27,1960. A feature of the inquiry was the acceptance by the committee of an offer by Fletcher Holdings, Ltd., to arrange at its own expense for consultants of world standing to make a report on potential industries for the West Coast. The United States firm of consultants, Arthur D. Little, Inc., did this work and made a subsequent report. Exploitation In the prologue to its main (1960) report the committee says:

“Another important factor was that outside business interests, particularly Canterbury firms, have controlled much of the exploitation. This has meant: the West Coast has not always retained the income and wealth generated from its resources; the outside interests have been unwilling to process bn the West Coast in competition with their own processing plants elsewhere; a ‘colonial type’ exploitation of the area aimed at maximum return from minimum investment has grown up.” This report made nine recommendations on forestry licences and timber use, the principal ones being:— (1) That short-term licences be replaced by licences for at least 10 years’ cutting, in order to justify capital expenditure in setting up plants. (2) That licences should contain provisions ensuring total cut; that there should be local preservative treatment of “a certain minimum per cent of the cut”; that there should be local machining and processing of “a certain minimum percentage.” (3) That applicants giving proof of intention and ability to take the processes of use still further, should receive preference in the granting of licences.

The committee added: “Small millers need not be excluded under this policy. They could install co-operative plants for this utilisation of the raw timbers. We attach great importance to this recommendation.”