Coal Bill Debate Continued: State Control Attacked

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 August 1948, Page 5

Coal Bill Debate Continued: State Control Attacked

P.A.) WELLINGTON, This Day. Resuming the debate on the Coal Bill in the House of Representatives this morning, Mr C. M. Bowden (Oppn, Karori) said the total compensation. payable to coal owners under the bill would probably be about £1,000,000 for which the State would acquire possibly 1,000,000,000 tons. This meant a payment of only about Id per ton, which was not adequate in view of the fact that the royalties owners had received up to the present time ranged up to Is per ton. The owners had at least some millions invested in coal and to offer them £1,000,000 in full compensation was absurd. The owners would have to fight even for this sum and the process, on the Minister’s admission, was likely to take years. Failure in Britain Mr F. W. Doidge (Oppn, Tauranga) said Mr McLagan had made it plain that the bill was part of the Government's plan for the complete nationalisation of the coal industry and the onus was on the Government to prove that nationalisation wpuld be in. the public interest. This the Minister had failed to do. The State-owned mines in New Zealand last year had an aggregate net loss of £91,000, despite high subsidies, and it could not be claimed that nationalisation would make for more economic production. Mr Doidge said it could not be claimed that nationalisation would reduce industrial unrest on the coalfields. Britain’s experience had been the exact opposite, for the miners hated their new bureaucratic bosses in London. The Minister must have had his fill of the political pressure from militant unionists and the Labour Government could hardly expect to succeed in New Zealand where the Labour Government in Britain had failed. Because of the failure of earlier legislation, many people in Britain, normally opposed to nationalisation, had been won over, but the failure of State ownership in Britain offered valuable lessons for New Zealand. Coal in Britain had become dearer, instead of cheaper. Sir Charles Reid, production chief, had resigned from the National Coal Board, declaring that he had no confidence in the board or the organisation that had been set up, and the Coal Board was breaking up while the system of administration was breaking down. Exposure of Failure

Britain’s experience was a very sorry story, giving a terrific public exposure of bureaucratic failure. One reason for the failure was that the Government had placed emphasis on the political, rather than the technical aspects of. nationalisation. The Minister should suspend his plans and shelve the bill. All recognised that coal production in New Zealand was unsatisfactory, but nationalisation was not the solution of the problems.

Mr A. E. Armstrong (Government, Napier) said that the subsidies paid to private enterprise totalled £67,200 in 1946, which yvas an increase of £12,000 on the previous year. Mr Doidge: But the State mines get three times as much as the amount paid to private enterprise. Mr Armstrong said the point was that private enterprise had had to be subsidised to the tune of millions ol pounds over recent years. It was scandalous that malpractices in the winning of coal had been allowed to go on. An Opposition voice: The Labour Government has been in power for 13 years. . <• Mr Armstrong said the Minister of Labour was working on a scheme which would give the miners a say in the working of the mines, and the miners would, as near as possible, own and control the industry. No Justification Mr W. S. Goosman (Opposition, Piako) said he agreed with the Minister of Labour that the miners were better oft’ than they had over been. It would be right to say that mining conditions had been improved and there was no justification for. perpetuating the feeling of prejudice and resentment, a good deal of which had some from the Old Country. He

hoped that such feelings would be overcome. The Bill had very iittle to do with the actual mining of coal and had been used by the Government as grounds for an attack on private enterprise. The transference of the ownership of coal from private enterprise to the State would not help to produce more coal. Mr Goosman said the wastage ol which the Minister had complained had been going on during the 13 years the Government had been, in power. If the Bill would achieve anything more than the transference of ownership of coal, the Opposition mieffit consider it worth something, but actually the Bill achieved nothing. The Minister had quoted no cases of efficient mine-working, and he had no doubt exaggerated to suit his own case. The chief objective ol the Bill was confiscation of the ownership of coal. If the Government, was going to get away with that, it would not be long before the present action would be used as a P re “ cedent, and argument. to enable it to confiscate and nationalise othei things in the future. Professor Park’s View Mr McLagan said that, although the Blackball mine was worked lor aU years before the company abandoned it, the amount of coal irretrievably lost in it was much more than the 4.420 000 tons extracted to the end of 1946. Professor James Park, the well-known geologist, in 1910 said large quantities of coal were being wasted and uiged supervision by engineers in State emP1 Mr D. M. Rae (Opposition, Parnell.) : Is this waste still going on? Mr McLagan; In some cases. When mines have been laid out it is difficult to alter them. „ f In 1911 Mr P. G. Morgan. Chief ol the Geological Survey, said much coal had already been wasted in nearly all the Dominion’s coalfields. Mr McLagan continued. In 1919 the Industries Committee of the House of Representatives eomorising five Reform members, lite Liberal one Independent, but no Labour.’ urged the nationalisation 01. coal measures to prevent waste. Mr McLagan said the 1940 report, on the Southland coalfield referred to the wav the extraction rate of coal had been endangered by malpractice. A Reefton report stated that the methods adopted were wasteful and extravagant. The writer of that report was the secretary of rhe Coalmine Owners' Association of New Zealand, who was giving evidence on the appalling wastage ol coal resulting from mining methods adopted by private enterprise. Resources Limited Coal had been worked and treated and wasted as if it were inexhaustible, with the most appalling disregard foi the interests of the nation, said the Minister. The need for conservation ol coal had been seen long ago by people who were qualified to express such an 0P New Zealand’s proved coal resources todav were 300,000.000 tons, of which 14,000.000 tons were bituminous. New Zealand’s probable additional coal was 537.000,000 tons, which included 56 000.000 tons of bituminous coal, mat made 70.000.000 tons of bituminous coal which was all that was in sight at. the present, though further prospecting might reveal more. A very substantial proportion was high sulphur coal, which could not be used for the purposes lor which bituminous coal was needed. New Zealand’s high grade bituminous coal would have to be preserved for specific purposes. The total coal production to the end of 1946 was 111.000,000 tons, of which, bituminous and sub-bituminous coal accounted for 105,000.000 tons. The coal had been used in the wrong prone rtions The Government had sent an expert abroad to study processes ol sulphur extraction from coal. Mr McLagan said that as far as compensation was concerned there was une school of thought which considered no compensation should be paid because the present owners of the coal did not create it nor did they add anything to its value. The other school demanded that compensation be paid for every ton of coal known to be. in the ground and for every last ton which might be found. The Bill, however, proposed to follow the course adopted in the United Kingdom and to pay fair and reasonable compensation to private owners. The last seven years, over which compensation would be assessed, were the highest production years in New Zealand.

Mr F. W. Doidge (Opposition, Tauianga'l : Why not provide for appeals? Mr McLagan: If that were done, this century might net see the end of appeals. 1