TOO COSTLY

Grey River Argus, 26 November 1920, Page 2

TOO COSTLY

In articles lately condemnatory of the Forestry Department as a certain financial white clepliant, the Hokitika • ' Guardian ' ' has this to say:'" ' ' In tho main Estimates the Government put down a Forestry Department vote of £142,000, anjl in the Supplementary Estimates a further vote of £148,000. . . . In addition, poweT was taksii in the Finance Act 'to borrow no iess N a sum than £500,000 for forestry purposes. . . . Nearly £SOO,OOO is too much for a new Department setting ou^t. . . . It will take £30,000 per anuin to pay interest on tho borrowed money." Now we submit that upon this writer's . own showing it would take nothing of the kind. For instance, it is adir itted that a kauri forest is being purchased for £102, 000 out of the money mentioned; and this will surely increase in value, of its own accord, at a rate that will enable* much more than tl'.a interest" on it to be paid. Likewise it is a baseless complaint to say £3000 spent on a Sahool of Forestry will not pay handsome interest, for the experts it trains arc not only essential, but they will get the utmost from our forests; while £6000 to be spent on irre prevention will be profitable insurance; and the spending of £700,000 upon •planting must mean a big profit in years to come. If critics cannot cite, any better proofs of prospective loss than these, they are not -likely to convince anybody; while- the objection to authority to borrow when necessary cannot be entertained if it means that objectors want to know the plans before they are finally decided iipon. The money is not likely to be spent suddenly or was ; tef ully. It will doubtless be utilised "gradually, and will probably prove to be '^comparatively quickly reproductive. Indeed, so long as it purchases assets either in capac J ity or material capital, it! only needs a broad view, in place £f a narrow one, to ' perceive the profitable "return that tile State must reap in the years to come. To say it ife going to cost. £320,000 "for the year" to administer the Department, is J3ot •perhaps the same thing as say'fnaj it is to take £800,000 in. "setting out," as noted above, but, it is an unfair .statement of the case. Even suppose £300.000 were spent in initiating, this countrywide scheme, it might not be all spent in one or even two years, while it will riot be in any case a recurring expenditure, and every big enterprise requires a proper foundation. To say «'the country cannot afford, this new

million per annum," is utterly to misrepresent the position. 'There will not be a liability of a t&ith as much yearly. In a f ew y earSj the returns to the State from the competitive buying of bush will bring in three or four times that sum, and more. When a critic in one breath says that an upset price of £12 per acre ia too much royalty for millers 'to pay, and in "an other that thil would mean a debt -of £54,-1' 500 to be met by the West 1 Coast jMi-j lie, it is nonsense. Would the rest of , : the country pay nothing? Would there, be no benefit here from . the expenditure 'of ,say, £70,000 on forestry f Would anyone seriously contend that £20 an acre is too much to aslt for the' timber when prices are as high as theyare? Indeed, there are many milling 1 concerns that would probably pay much more for 'timber if- they could get it where they wanted it. If the country, last year, as stated, got only £8000 or so fox the timber cut on the West Coast, then all that can be said is that it is time a change came; for the timber on 1500 acres of average bush is too much for the State to dispose of to individuals for many times that amount. It is /io service to the West Coast to tell outsiders they must beware lest they countenance £70,000 a year being spent here, -owing to an alleged, liability on .the part of the people elsewhere to share in a loss of £50,000. The West Coast has in the past contributed much towards other districts, and it is only fair that ' a return should now be made. Moreover, people in other parts are so much, iri' need of timber as it is, that they will not bc~ averse to a policy that will help to better the supply in the future. In. short, we cannot l. see, cither from a West Coast or from .a national standpoint, where the finan- . eial aspect of the forestry policy is any disqualification in- the scheme. The financial /prospects are among itsbrightest aspects.