Wrangle over timber may end in court

Press, 11 July 1986, Page 3

Wrangle over timber may end in court

PA Wellington Responsibility for compensating homeowners whose houses have been treated with the defective alkyl ammonium compounds may develop Into a legal battle between the Government, timber preservers and retailers. The Minister of Forests, Mr Wetere, said yesterday that he believed the prime responsibility lay with those commercially involved in treating the timber, and those who distributed the preservative.

He said he was confident the preservation industry’would maintain its responsibilities in this direction. He would have difficulty recommending to the Government that it make reimbursements of costs as recommended by the Timber Preservation Authority in a report written at Mr Wetere’s request late last week.

Mr Wetere called for the report after it was revealed on the television programme, “Fair Go,” on July 2 that the timber authority, a Government quango established in 1955, decided to withdraw

approval for use of the compounds in September, 1985, because timber in some situations had failed, yet had not made a public statement on the matter.

However, a spokesman for the Timber Federation, Mr Wayne Coffey, said yesterday that the prime responsit ility lay with the Government.

The preservative had been endorsed by two Government institutions, the Forest Research Institute and the timber authority, and the timber industry had used the preservative in good faith, he said. He believed the four companies which had treated timber with the defective preservative had complied strictly with its specifications. These included Carter Holt (Auckland), Timber and Hardware, Ltd (Tokoroa), Waipa Sawmill (Rotorua) and Senton Timber, Ltd (Orinl, near Hamilton). Mr Coffey said homeowners with problem timber had until now been honoured by their timber suppliers. The question of who reimbursed the suppliers was the difficult question,

he said.

Mr Coffey said he did not necessarily believe the situation would result in a legal battle. “We are hopeful that something can be worked out between the Government and the industry,” he said. Mr Wetere has called for a meeting between the timber industry and the Forest Service “to work toward a common procedure for a settlement of claims” arising from the use of the defective preservative. He hoped a detailed and authoritative statement would be drawn up for consumers on what to look for and who to contact with any concerns.

He criticised the timber authority for its error of judgment in not fully publicising the problem at the outset. However, recommendations in late June that a public statement be made were overtaken by events following on the “Fair Go” programme, he said.

A Carter Holt spokesman said that although Mr Wetere’s statement had been studied by the company it did not wish to comment.