Golden Bay head outlines problems

Press, 15 May 1985, Page 42

Golden Bay head outlines problems

PA Wellington The first quarter of 1985 has shown encouraging results for the Golden Bay Cement Company, with profit levels higher than last year’s first quarter, the chairman, Mr Douglas Fraser, said at the annual meeting.

“Domestic sales from both Portland and Tarakohe have increased and our principal task for the remainder of the year is to maintain these volumes,” Mr Fraser said.

Mr Fraser said a report of the impact of any closing of the company’s plant at Tarakohe in Golden Bay had been produced by an interdepartmental committee for the Minister of Regional Development.

“We are doing everything we can to enable us to keep Tarakohe going,” he said. “While we give no guarantees or undertakings, your board and your company are doing all in their power to maintain a twoplant, two-ship operation in the cement making industry.”

Mr Fraser said he believed Golden Bay was an efficient producer, with excellent staff, good plant and many loyal customers, producing more than 500,000 tonnes of cement a year. “And yet, with these assets at our command and this kind of turn-over, our share price stands at only par. “We think we make a valuable contribution to the construction industry in New Zealand. We use New Zealand-sourced raw materials, we have a labour force of New Zealanders.

“The ingredients are there. We will have to be more efficient, more earnings conscious and more

economical. We have to make more profits.” The share price of the company was referred to by a shareholder, Mr Alan Budge, who said the small shareholders, owning about 14 per cent of the company, were treated as poor relations.

Mr Budge said the small shareholders had no voice in the company and while they could sell out, “at what price?”

He suggested the Britishbased Blue Circle company, which owns 55 per cent of the company, could buy out the small shareholders.

The company’s directors’ fees.- were increased from $50,000 to $62,000. Mr Fraser said the company was increasing the numbers of directors and, to do that, needed to increase the fees. One shareholder said the increase was unfair in view of the fact that the shareholders’ dividend was remaining at 2.5 per cent. He voted against the increase.