OPEN-CAST MINING

Dominion, Volume 38, Issue 4, 29 September 1944, Page 6

OPEN-CAST MINING

“No Agitators Among Men,” Says Mr. Fraser quarries bill debate A denial that there was anything sinister in the definition of the scope of the measure as alleged by Mr. Goosman (Opposition, Waikato), was made by the Prime Minister, Mr. I raser, during the second reading debate on the Quarries Bill in the House last night. Mr. Fraser described the attack by Mr. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago) on a small group of miners as agitators as a grave injustice to some very honest and conscientious workers. . There seemed to be general approval of the Bill with the exception of the definition of its scope, and in tins the member for Waikato thought something new was being introduced, said Mr. Fraser. His speech had left the impression that the Minister of Mines was taking advantage of the opportunity to inf reduce , a consolidating measure m regard to quarrying, and was introducing something sinister in excluding open-cast mining from the Quarries Bill. Actually the definition was in the 1916 Act. The position with regard to open-cast mining in the Westport-Stockton area, tn connexion with which the member for Central Otago, Mr. Bodkin, bad referred to some of the men as agitators, was that the mine had been practically exhausted, said Mr. Fraser. There was danger that the township would have to close down and the miners’ homes be vacated; in fact, the Mines Department had actually gone so far as discussions for rehabilitating the miners and transferring them to other bituminous areas. However, such action was obviated by negotiations which resulted in the Westport-Stockton company’s lensing a lead from the Millerton mine. The main issue then was the method of mining, and following the eminently satisfactory results of the opencast mining experiments in the Waikato, it was decided to adopt this method. Subsequently, because of various events, the State acquired the property. Mr. Fraser referred to the proposal to work the mine by private contract. Anyone who understood the history of private contracting in connexion with coal or gold mining and the untold suffering and death associated -with it. would understand the anxiety of the workers. These men were loyal men and of upstanding character. They could not be described as agitators as alleged by Mr. Bodkin. Mr. Bodkin: I mentioned only three who went round the whole of the West Coast. They went because they felt they were fighting for a principle, said Mr. Fraser. At the same time he considered that their alarm was not justified when they had a Government which understood the situation. These men had kept that mine working for five years without a single stoppage. Their contributions to war loans averaged £2O a head. These men were not agitators. They were earnest, responsible citizens, who felt that the conditions they hud built up were likely to 'be broken down by the introduction of private employment. That was the attitude of the men when they came to Wellington to discuss the position with the Minister. Those discussions were carried 'through in a most reasonable manner, and an arrangement was reached, that the private contract would be eliminated, that the contractor’s plant would be operated by the Mines Department, and the contractor paid for his supervision. Mr. Goosman: The original contract was for a per ton rate. Will it now be per hour? The' Prime Minister said there would need to he a certain amount of accounting. The cost per ton would be the same and the contractor would be safeguarded against loss. He would be in the same position as an engineering firm being engaged to do a job. Defence of Private Enterprise.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Holland, said he was going to defend private ownership and would proudly hoist his flag for it and private enterprise, When we wanted money we knew where to lookrfor it and went to private enterprise. It was wrong for the Government speakers to imply that because of private ownership there was an increase in accidents and such-like. We would'only be. fooling ourselves if we said that open-cast winning of coal bad been carried on to any extent in the past. It was practically a new system, which had been introduced by the Government in its endeavours to obtain more coal. The Opposition's claim was that this system should come under the Quarries Act, but it was specially excluded from the present consolidating Bill. The Government on the other hand said that coal, no matter how it was won, should come under the Mining Act. The Prime Minister: That is the law at present. Mr. Holland said that when a system of winning coal was employed which was neither as dangerous nor as dirty as the usual mining methods it should be brought under the present measure. Referring to the Westport-Stockton mine Mr. Holland said the Prime Minister had created the impression that it was at the point of closing down when it was taken over by the State; That was incorrect according to his information, said Mr. Holland. The company had taken over a new area and wanted to work it by the open-cast method and the Government had assisted by providing the equipment to take off the top cover of the coal. Later the Government had stepped in and acquired the mine, and that exposed the length to which the Government would go where private enterprise and ownership were concerned. It had said it would not allow the contractor, whose ability and capacity for sueh work had been proved, to work ns a private owner and insisted that he should do the work as a State employee. That also exposed the philosophy of the Government.

Mr. Holland said there was no disputing the statement that the miners on the West Coast, whose secretary was a Minister in another place, had brought pressure to bear successfully on the Government in regard to the operation of the open-cast system. ’The Government had told them it was not going to keep the contracting system on and then claimed it had done an excellent job by getting rid of the man concerned. The result was that the miners' representatives had gone back to their homes “as happy as Larry.” The Government bad attempted to prove that State ownership of the mines was better than private ownership, continued -Mr. Holland. We had had two years’ experience of State ownership, and he was convinced that any impartial person would be disappointed with the results. ’The people were still short of coal and the necessities to produce gas, and State control had not achieved the results which the Minister of Mines had predicted would come from it. The Opposition supported the objects of the Bill in regard to its safety provisions, hut contended that, the open-east system of coal production was quarrying, nnd as such should bi l within the present Bill.

Mr, Laiigstone (Government, Waimarino) asked whether a gold miner or a coal ’miner was any less efficient for working in a quarry. Many of our best tunnellers and quarrymen were men who had started in mines, he said. “Any measure that makes for the safety of men carrying out dangerous occupations should be welcomed by the House,” said Mr. Atmore (Independent. Nelson). The Government, ho added, was to be commended for bringing in the Bill. When one heard the Opposition criticism of miners and waterside workers one won-

dered what the Opposition would have, to discuss if there were a close season for these two occupations. Mr. Carr (Government, Auckland West) said that nothing had ever been given voluntarily to the miners by the owners. Mr. Holyoake (Opposition, Pahiatua) said that the Opposition approved the principle of the Bill, there being only one small section that it had criticized in any way! About seven or eight weeks ago th_e Minister of Mines had stated that the coal problem would be solved in about three weeks, and he wondered if he still adhered to that statement. The Minister: If we can got the ships to take the bituminous coal from the South to the North Island. . Reply by Minister.

Replying to the debate, Mr. Webb said that every new clause had met with the whole-hearted approval of the House. All the discussion had taken place on clauses in the principal Act. Some of those had been inserted over 20 years ago. If it was found necessary to amend the Bill in minor ways to improve it he would be pleased to do so. He could not agree, however, that open-cast coal mining came within the Bill or had any bearing on it. Much had been made by the Opposition of that aspect, but it should be remembered that open-cast mining at its best could only be a more bagatelle in coal production. The Minister said he deprecated the statements of the member for Central Otago that the miners were influenced by a few agitators. “These men at Stockton have subscribed £6OOO, mortgaged their pay for almost a year ahead and some have mortgaged their homes to put money into the Victory Loan,” said the Minister. “Nobody in this country has contributed more in work and money and human flesh than the miners of Stockton. All through the war period not one day’s work hud been lost by stop-work meetings. I sincerely hope that all the miners in New Zealand will follow the example of these men and contribute to their last penny to the war loan.” The Bill was read a second time and referred to the Goldfields and Mines Committee.'