PARLIAMENT— Nationalisation Of Coal Measures: Bill Debated

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 August 1948, Page 2

PARLIAMENT— Nationalisation Of Coal Measures: Bill Debated

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, August 12.

, Those 'who voted for the Coal Bill could not logically fail t) support any measures which might seek to nationalise, for instance, the ownership of timber lands, of lime deposits, of cement works, or stone quarries, said the Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) in the House of Representatives this evening, expressing the Opposition’s determination to fight the Bill.

Replying to the Minister of Mines (Mr A. McLagan), who had spoken of the “prodigal wastage” of coal measures by private enterprise, Mr Holland said: “Success in this country did not begin in 1935,” and deprecated attacks on the work of pioneers in this and other industries.

Mr McLagan said millions of tons of coal had been lost by wasteful methods of extraction by coal operators who deliberately sought quick profits. New Zealand had failed badly to use her coals in correct proportions. Her supplies of bituminous and sub-bituminous coals were being used now at 10 times the rate of use of lignite and low-grade coals. The correct proportion should be .two tons of lignite for every ton of bituminous. Experts were investigating overseas how New Zealand could best protect her dwindling coal resources, especially those of proved and probable bitumen seams.; Ownership of Coal Moving the second reading, Mr McLagan said it was now widely recognised that coal resources should have remained under public ownership. That was the attitude of the Royal Commission appointed in Britain in 1925. Although composed entirely of Conservatives and Liberals with a bias for private enterprise, that commission favoured public ownership of coal measures. The desirability of this principle had been recognised in this country. The Bill would complete the correction of an error. Mr McLagan said two reasons made this step urgent: First, the prodigal waste of coal seams; second, more detailed and efficient prospecting in recent years had shown that New Zealand’s coal resources were much smaller than were once supposed, making the need for conserving the coal still left greater than ever. "Inadequate Prospecting” Mines had been laid out without adequate prospecting to determine the real extent of coal seams or their inclination, said the Minister. In the not very distinct past one mine was laid out with practically no prospecting of coal beforehand By chance development was started in the right direction but before the main seam was reached the opening was turned at right-angles. This happened again and yet again before coal was encountered. The result of this initial mistake, which saved money in the initial prospecting but cost a hundredfold later, was that the company went bankrupt and the mine out of production. In the desire for quick profits drives in some mines were made too <vide. Pillars were too small and removed before they should be. These mistakes meant eventual heavy losses in coal and money. In other instances the wrong coal was taken first, resulting in flooding which compelled the mines to be abandoned Fires following avoidable falls ol coal also caused heavy losses. West Coast Mines Mr McLagan said the Millerton mine, operated by the Westport. Coal Company, was a typical example of a mine in which much more coal would have been recovered had the cornpanv not been concerned with quick profits The Blackball mine was one in which through the removal ol the

wrong coal first, flooding occurred, leading eventually to the abandonment of the mine.

Mr W. S. Goosman (Opposition, Piako): Can the Minister tell of any well-worked mine under private enterprise? , Mr McLagan: Later. Mr McLagan said the Millerton mine had certainly yielded profits, but its extraction rate had been only about 30 per cent, of the available coal. To the end of 1946 it. yielded 9,280,000 tons, 'but in getting that amount the company lost for all time more than 21,000,000 tons. “That is not contested by the company; they have admitted it in my presence,” said the Minister. The Denniston mine, with one of the best quality seams in Now Zealand, yielded 12,250,000 tons to the end of 1946, but considerably more than that was lost in the process. Mr T. C. Webb (Opposition, Rodney): How is that known? Mr McLagan: You can consult the company’s technical people and they will confirm it. The Minister said this figure was based on calculations which were not merely theoretical. It was possible to measure fairly exactly what amount of coal had been available in a mine. Mr M. H. Oram (Opposition, Manawatu): Can the Minister quote any authorities? Mr McLagan: You can go and ask the mine managers. Mr Oram: It isn’t our duty to consult them. Mr Oram said the Opposition could not accept figures which were not proved. COAL LOSSES BY STATE NOT MENTIONED (P.A.) WELLINGTON, August 12. In the House of Representatives tonight, .speaking on the Coal Bill, the Leader of the Opposition,. Mr Holland, said the Minister of Mines had spoken for an hour and a quarter, and more than an hour of that time was devoted to attack on private enterprise. Mr Holland said his own bias for private enterprise, which he gladly acknowledged, was based on long experience and on pride in the principles on which this country and the British Empire were built. He had another bias—against Communism—and he wondered if the Minister could say the same. Mr Holland said that since it took office in 1935 the Government had made considerable progress towards its goal of Socialism. Each session people asked: “I wonder whose turn it will be now” or “I wonder what further freedom is to be trampled underfoot this session.” The present Bill was another instalment of the Government’s policy. This session it was the ownership of coal and of the land in which the coal was found which was being placed under State control. Threat To Land Ownership

Mr Holland predicted that before the end of this session another important instalment of the Government’s policy might be introduced in the House —a Bill which would be a grave threat to complete ownership of land and to the right of people to enjoy unrestricted freehold in their land. . “That’s not bad for a guess, is it? asked Mr Holland. Mr A. C. Baxter (Government, Raglan): A great guess. Mr R. MacDonald (Government, Ponsonby): A lot of humbug. Mr Holland said that some months ago he had visited West Coast coalfields. The Minister might have paid a tribute to the private contractors who were working certain coal deposits in spite of many hardships and who never took a day off. Mr Holland said he would pay a tribute to the coal miners as a whole. The Government, in spite of 13 years in office, had done little to provide miners with what they most wanted: better houses, better amenities. These things concerned miners in isolated townships even more than did wages. Whatever Government was in office it had a duty to provide these men with decent places in which to live, decent public halls, decent opportunities for recreation. If all New Zealanders had supported the Aid-for-Britain appeal as well as the West Coast miners, the Dominion’s contribution would have been much greater. . , Mr R. MacDonald: You are on the wrong side. Mr Holland: We’ll be over there at the end of next year. Minister’s Case Mr Holland said the whole of the Minister’s case had been founded on the alleged wrongs of private owners in working coal mines, yet no clause in the Bill had anything to do with the working of coal. There was not a single fault mentioned by the Minister which could not be corrected by ordinary legislation and good administration. No case had been made by the Minister to show that change ol ownership would put these things It was generally agreed that the coal was vital to New Zealand’s economy and that New Zealand had insufficient for its requirements, said Mr Holland. There was a duty on any Governmentto conserve its resources to see that coal was not wasted and that the seams were efficiently worked. It was geneially recognised that public welfare took precedence over private interests. This had been applied to legislation on resources of hydro-electric power and oil. but the question as far as the present I Bill was concerned was: did it offer the best possible approach to the problem of conserving coal or was there an alternative which was preferable. Mr Holland said the Bill provided for the complete nationalisation of coal resources and when State ownership of coal had been established the process could be quickly completed. Coal could I be worked only under licence and the 1 Government could .issue licences to I whom it pleased, to the State, or could f withhold them at will to complete the nationalisation of the industry. I Losses by State Management ! Much had been said about the loss I of coal under private enterprise, sain , Mr Holland. It must be admitted that i millions of tons had been lost wasted I under private enterprise, and State i management also, and he had been given expert information that as much ' coal had been wasted by the State as i by private enterprise. The Minister, however, had nothing to say about the wicked loss in production caused by I stoppages in mines. Methods of worki ling employed by private enterprise pad been identical with methods used I by the State, and both private enterprise and the State had used the most

modern machinery in the respective mines which was available. The Minister had said nothing about the use of better methods to obtain more coal, and the Bill did nothing else but complete State ownership ot coal resource?. It would be agreed by all that strict control of coal resources was vital. , , Mr Holland said he was opposed to nationalisation, opposed to socialisation of coal resources, and opposed to the breaking of agreements, which the Bill would do, but with an important qualification: unless it could be shown beyond the slightest shadow of doubt that the action taken would be to the advantage of the public. The BUI merely assured ownership and provided compensation. It did nothing to Improve production methods, or to ensure it better quality of coal, or to make coal cheaper. . Compensation Basis Criticised While the compensation proposed looked a reasonable proposition on the surface, when it was examined it was found that the average would be taken over ft complete area and. not those parts in respect of which royalties were at present being paid. As the complete areas which included those not being worked were at least three times the size of those being worked, the average would be greatly decreased. The Minister’s reply to the member for Tauranga about appeals was a confession which showed the weakness in the way in which compensation was based In his judgment there could not be a set rule for fixing compensation unless the geographical position of the area its accessibility, quality of coal, thickness of seams, amount of overburden, and whether the area was proved were all taken into consideration- . , x The debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 10.30 until 10.30 tomorrow morning. TRANSPORT BILL (P.A.) WELLINGTON, August 12. The Transport Amendment Bill was read a second time and referred to a select committee, consisting of the following members: Messrs J. B. Cotterill (Government, Wanganui), R. G. Gerard (Opposition, Ashburton), W. S. Goosman (Opposition, Piako), R. M. Macfarlane (Government, Christchurch Central), G. H. Mackley (Opposition, Wairarapa), J. Mathison (Government, Avon), T. E. Skinner (Government, Tamaki), and S. W. Smith (Opposition, Hobson), and the Minister of Transport (Mr F. Hackett). 1 Replying to a question from Mr Mackley, Mr Hackett said the committee would meet, in the near future —tomorrow —when it would select a chairman and then fix a date when it would take evidence.