TIMBER TENDERS

Evening Post, Issue 86, 11 April 1936, Page 14

TIMBER TENDERS

MR. REESE EXPLAINS

A FURTHER STATEMENT

TWO POIXTS CLAEIFIED

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

CHRISTCHURCH, This Day.

A further reply was made today by Mr. D. Reese (a member of the late Railways Board), following the statement of the Minister of Railways (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan) published on Thursday regarding timber tenders and the closing of the Department's sawmill at Mamaku

illlli ell IVIcUIIciKU. . : r ■ "It appeared to me that enough had been said,"said Mr. Reese. "Mr. Sullivan's latest statement, however, has two Effects. First, it gives me ground for dealing briefly with two points. I have had examined the whole of the records covering the last five years' operations of the New Forest Sawmilling Company. I now find that, notwithstanding my care that no business should be done with the Railways, there was one instance of tendering— the instance quoted by the Minister, and that was'for a local inquiry, for the Addington Workshops. That tender was not accepted. Neither Mr. Sullivannor myself had any knowledge of this tender when we first spoke. NO TENDER AGAINST MAMAKU.. "The second point is that'the West Coast Sawmillers' Association is alleged to have tendered against tha Mamaku Mill. It never did. It may be upon one happening that Mr. Sullivan's original statement was based. During my absence from Christchurch. with the Railway' Board on an extended tour of inspection a Departmental inquiry for one million feet of timber which had been circulated among millers on the West Coast was submitted by several of them to the secretary of the association, Mr. A. O. Wilkinson. These millers suggested that as this was a specification which, no one mill could handle, whatever could be handled should be divided amongst these mills. Even then, onlyhalf of the original one million feet was tendered for, unsuccessfully. Oa my return to Christchurch Mr. Wilkinson told me of what he had done. I pointed out that I had always insisted that the association should, whiie I was a member of the Railways Board, refrain from business dealings with the Railway Department. SECRETARY'S ACTION. "At the next meeting of the association my point of view was accepted, and a resolution passed that the association would not tender. The secretary had considered that it was not really an association matter, as he was acting for only a small group of association mills who were interested in the tender. Mr. Wilkinson interviewed the General Manager of Railways for the purpose of explaining to him that his (Mr. Wilkinson's), action had been without my knowledge, and asked that this information be reported to the board in order to make my position quite clear. Mr. Wilkinson informs me that shorthand notes of his interview with the. General Manager were taken.

"In one way, and in one way only, could the Mamaku Mill-be ■ mentioned in connection, with tendering—the cost at- which the Department said the Mamaku Mill,,if operating, could have, cut the timber was used for purposes of comparison ■with tender.-. AH this happened nearly twelve months after the Mamaku Mill had ceased operation and nearly a year ago. "As to the other effect of Mr. Sullivan's statement, quoted fully from Hansard, it adds sufficient to make it clear to me that Mr. Sullivan originally intended, as he says he intended, to condemn the method of -ontrol and not to attack individuals. Hs obviously could not have realised that, despite his assurance of his speaking impersonally, his mode of attack was bound to be regarded as reflecting on members of the board personally. Misunderstanding is at the root of the controversy. That, more than Mr. Sullivan, I regret."