COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL OPPONENTS AGREE TIMBER IS TASMAN MARKET HOPE

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30794, 5 July 1965, Page 12

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL OPPONENTS AGREE TIMBER IS TASMAN MARKET HOPE

(From Our Own Reporter)

WELLINGTON, July 4.

When a senior Opposition member compliments a member of the Cabinet on his speech in the Budget debate, it is news. This occurred last week, two Canterbury members being involved.

The Opposition member paying the compliment was Mr J. Mathison (Avon), and the one so honoured was the Minister of Forests (Mr Gerard). The incident emphasising the unity in thinking by successive governments which has given New Zealand its greatest asset in the coming negotiations for the limited free trade area between Australia and New Zealand—timber and forestry products.

Mr Gerard made the point that New Zealand’s hopes for a successful limited free trade area with Australia lie almost entirely in timber and forest products. Because of a continuous forest policy, endorsed by successive Governments, he said, New Zealand had a national sufficiency in softwood supplies, plus a large and expanding provision for export. On the other hand, Australia had a growing deficiency in wood products, amounting to 100 million cubic feet a year in softwoods alone—a market much larger than New Zealand could ever hope to sup ply.

“If a free trade area is established, my advisers have estimated, on the basis of approved export targets, that earnings from forest products exports could amount to about £6O million in 35 years’ time—or £l7 million more than if there were no free trade area,” Mr Gerard told the House.

An agreement would clear the way for the continued free entry of newsprint into Australia, and would open up a great market in kraft paper and pulp. It was in the kraft field that New Zealand would make most gains, for the growth in the use of kraft for packaging and wrapping was phenomenal. A great advantage conferred by the limited free trade zone would be to enable longer runs of certain printing, writing, tissue, and wallpapers to be made, thus placing New Zealand manufacturers in a better position to compete on the Australian market and elsewhere. “In my opinion, in the absence of free trade, at least one-third of New Zealand’s forest industry earning potential will be wasted,” Mr Gerard said. “The logical growth of the paper industry will be inhibited, and the range of products available for export limited.” New Plantings “Exotic forestry in New Zealand is on the threshold of a new and exciting era,” Mr Gerard said. In the year ended March 31, a record area of 20,500 acres had been planted with exotic trees. The figure had gone up from 9637 acres in 1960-61 to 11,500 acres in 1961-62, 15,000 acres in 1962-63, and 18,500 in 196364. The areas where new plantings should be undertaken were clearly indicated. The programme was:— 1. The Rotorua-Bay of Plenty district, where existing wood-based industries were established, had first priority. 2. “Resources to meet the

needs of a second industrial unit must be built up in the Nelson district, and substantial plantings are taking place as an expansion to the nucleus already existing there.” 3. Provision must be made within reasonable distance to meet the heavy demands of metropolitan Auckland. Wellington and Christchurch rather than draw from more distant centres.

4. Plantings in existing local supply forests would continue. 5. The creation of an industrial forest in the Dunedin district has started, and sufficient land for a nucleus planting area was already in Forest Service ownership. Mr Gerard said the production of sawn timber in the year ended March 31 was another record at 736 million board feet. The highest previous annual cut was 714 million board feet in 1961.

On the future of Eyrewell State Forest, Mr Gerard said the Forest Service was* confident that it could be replanted under modern silvicultural procedures in such a way as to minimise windthrow. “If, however, it is decided to release part of the forest for farming purposes, it will only mean that the Forest Service will require extra land for the Canterbury market somewhere else,” Mr Gerard said.

(Subsequent inquiries indicate that Eyrewell will almost certainly be replanted, under paragraph 3 of Mr Gerard’s five-point programme on replanting. Christchurch needs Eyrewell as a handy timber source.) Static Motions

Members who have spoken about overwork and shortage of staff in the Government Printing Office might look closer to home for some of the reasons for printing delays. The Parliamentary Order Paper, printed every sitting day for the convenience of members and staff, currently has 11 pages, more than five of which are occupied with notices of motion which are never likely to be voted on. There are 37 such notices, five of which have been debated for an average of more than two hours each. In at least two of these five cases, and probably in all five, a vote could have been taken, but neither side showed any interest in doing so. The remaining 32 motions, or as many of them as can be reached, will be debated on Wednesday afternoons. The time allowed is that remaining between the completion of formal business and the taking of the evening meal adjournment—between two and two hours and a half. The forecast is that this will not result in any relief for the Order Paper, but rather the reverse, as the original motion tends to take on amendments during discussion (none of which is voted on either). And the Wednesday afternoon discussions will last only as long as the Government leaders refrain from moving that Government business should take precedence.

The motions already discussed have been three by Opposition members, Messrs W. E. Rowling (Buller), N. E. Kirk (Lyttelton), and A. J.

Faulkner (Roskill), on rising prices, the Tasman free trade zone, and rising land values respectively; and two by Government members, Messrs A. E. Allen (Franklyn) and E. P. Aderman (New Plymouth) on electricity and education. This pattern of alternate blame and praise is carried through the remaining motions. Indeed, it may be said that most Opposition motions, questioning or censuring the Government, will be followed by Government motions of a back-patting nature.

This expensive and fruitless nonsense is one of the results of the so-called “streamlining” of Parliamentary procedure carried out several years ago, mainly at the suggestion of the present Speaker (Sir Ronlad Algie). In cutting down the time allocated to private members in the Address-in-Reply and Budget debates, Sir Ronald Algie expressed concern that members might regard this as a restriction of their rights. He therefore offered the “Notice of Motion Half-Day” and the Adjournment debate (of half an hour, twice weekly) as replacements. The Adjournment debate (known colloquially as “Hancock’s Half-Hour”) has been a bright, though at times limited, success. The Notice of Motion system seems to achieve no results but the using-up of time and the incurring of administrative expenses. The motions remaining for discussion, arranged for convenience under their party headings, are as follows: Government (praise and support): Savings (Mr MacIntyre), defence (Mr Sloane), primary production (Mr Carter), university building (Mr Brown), overseas trade (Mr Donald), nationalisation (Mr Sheath), import controls (Mr Gordon), fishing (Mrs Tombleson), tourism (Mr Lapwood), British Commonwealth (Mr Walsh). Opposition (criticism and disapproval): Housing for aged (Mr Fraser), delays in educational building (Mr Amos), Development Finance Corporation (Sir Basil Arthur), roads construction (Mr Whitehead), education (Mr Edwards), Monetary Fund (Mr Blanchfieid), land costs (Mr Moyle), prescriptions (Miss Howard) Maraetai II (Mr Watt), holidays (Mr Rox), nuclear tests (Mr King), pensions (Mr Douglas), road toll (Mr MacDonell), Maori seats (Sir Eruera Tirikatene), foreign aid (Sir Walter Nash), Wanganui River (Mr Spooner), war pensions (Mr Macdonald), diplomatic post (Mr May), mortgage rates (Mr Tizard), newspaper takeovers (Mr Frew), farm training (Mr Connelly), legislative (Dr. Finlay). The notices promises a wide and potentially interesting volume of subjects. It also suggests that some way to dispose of them should be sought as a matter of urgency Here are two suggestions: (1) Instead of adjourning for a recess on July 16, the House should continue to meet, with all members in attendance, dealing exclusively with notices of motion until all are disposed of by vote.

(2) Standing Orders should be amended to provide for a compulsory vote on any Notice of Motion after a maximum of two hours’ discussion, allowing each speaker 10 minutes.