TIMBER INDUSTRY

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 119, 15 November 1929, Page 10

TIMBER INDUSTRY

PRODUCTION AND MARKETING

A REPLY

(By the Nineteen Twenty-Eight Committee.)

The secretary of the New Zealand Sawmillers' Federation, who recently attempted to demolish some frank criticism levelled against the construction of the Timber Industrial Efficiency Bill, a measure he has been seeking during the last year or two to place upon the statute book, again has had tli© ill-fortune to see his magnum opus set aside until "a more convenient season." His retort to the dissection of the Bill was reminiscent of the advice alleged to 'have been given by a successful barrister to a younger member of his profession. ""When you have no case," this authority is said to have counselled, "abuse the other side." In the course of half a column of good bold print, the secretary of the Sawmillers' Federation applied the advice of the successful barrister. 'Without a shadow of proof, he denounced the statements of his critic as "purely surmise," "utter, inaccuracy," "a diatribe," "specious and naive," "waste of breath," "utterly ridiculous," "absolutely incorrect," and so forth and so on to the length already indicated. One would not like to say that all these empty assertions were intended to disguise the facts of the position; but the secretary would have only himself to blame were such an interpretation placed upon his loose and extravagant language.

SOME EXAMPLES.

It would be too great a demand upon the hospitality of any newspaper to ask it to publish replies to the whole of the assertions made by the • secretary of the Sawmillers' Federation, but by way of illustrating the flimsy foundations on which they rest it may be permissible to analyse one or two of them. Towards this end a paragraph from the secretary's retort may be quoted: "Then comes the diatribe against the. so-called .minority rule if the Timber Industrial Efficiency Board were established. The writer of the article under comment refrains from explaining that there is only a difference, of 5 per cent, as between the majority required to bring the board into being and the majority required to disestablish it. Also the argument used is specious and naive, for the writer also refrains from explaining that exactly the same argument would apply in regard to the minority of 36 per cent, which may continually prevent 64 per cent, of the sawmillers from bringing the Efficiency Board into being. The argument applies both ways, so it is so much waste Breath. 3'

It will be.;noticed that in this one paragraph the secretary of the federation employs three of the elegant phrases that already have been mentioned. But let that pass.

MINORITY RTJLE,

It may be, as the secretary says, that the argument applies both ways; but it certainly does not apply both ways in equal measure. • To begin with, the votes of 65 per cent, of the sawmillers would be required to bring the Bill into operation and the votes of 70 per cent, to put it out of operation. But this is not all in this respect. Clause 4 of the Act provides that if "a proposal to bring the Act into operation is rejected the Minister may at any time and from time to time thereafter on petition . . . cause another poll to be taken on the same proposal." Then in clause 8, three pages away from the clause just quoted, there is a provision that "if at a poll under this Act the proposal to. disestablish ■ the board is not carried a further poll on a like proposal shall not be taken within three years after the' date of the first-mentioned poll." It would be quite possible under these conditions for a largo majority of sawmillers, even a majority of 09 per cent., to find themselves at the mercy of a minority of 31 per cent, for a decade or more. The secretary of the federation does not dispute this point. ' "The argument applies both ways." he says, "so it is so much waste breath.' 1 Comment is unnecessary.

INCONCEIVABLE LEGISLATION.

Every one of the secretary's imputations—all his charges o£ surmises, inaccuracies, diatribes, and the rest— could be as easily and as" effectively refuted as his half-truths and whole misconceptions have been.. But observant people arc not so much concerned by the constitution of the Efficiency .Board, its levies and polls,- its inspectors and experts, its audits and penalties, its contracts and regulations, as they are by its menace to legitimate personal liberty and private enterprise. If 25 per cent., or 50 per cent., .or 75 per cent., or 99 per cent., of the sawmillers wish to band themselves .together with the laudable object of benefiting their business and themselves, by all means let them do so. But they have no more rights in this direction than have the grocers or the merchants or the bankers or any other section of- the community. The attempt of a section of the sawmillers, small or great, to drag all the followers of their industry willy-nilly into a federation debarring individual initiative would be a travesty upon British liberty and fair play. In no part of the Empire, except in war time, has such an arbitrary piece of legislation been attempted, and. it is inconceivable it would be tolerated in this country. Competition is not only the soul of business, it also is an assurance of justice to the public.