Minister Replies

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 101, 9 April 1936, Page 6

Minister Replies

RAILWAYS BOARD Attack Was Merely Upon The System MR. REESE’S STATEMENT (dv Telegraph-Press Association.) WELLINGTON, April S. In a statement issued this evening the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, Minister of Railways, made reference to co-mmunications submitted to the Press by Mr D. Reese, of Christchurch (a member of the (late Railways Board), in regard to the closing of the Bailway Department's sawmill at Mamakir. “I had hoped,” said the Minister, ’•to have the opportunity of replying more fully in ths House last evening, but time did not permit of this before the adjournment at midnight took place. "The suggestion made by Mr Reese that I attacked any man’s honour in my statements has no foundation, in fact,” said Mr Sullivan. "It arises from the distortion of my remarks by the Opposition for party purposes, as a perusal of my Hansard proof makes perfectly clear. This is what I said in openng my speech on the second reading of the Bill; — " ‘lt will be understood, therefore, that in saying the things it is inevitable I must say about the board I am speaking in an impersonal manner and am dealing with principles. I have no intention of making personal reflections upon individual members of the board. ’ . "Later on,” said the Minister, "I pointed out that I did not suggest anything improper, and in concluding my opening speech I made use of these re marks: ‘I know them (the members of the board) personally, and I repeat what I said in my earlier remarks—namely, that my comment is impersonal and is directed against tho system and not against the individual members of the board.’ Subsequently, when replying to the debate on the second reading, I found it necessary to say, in reply to interjections, that 1 had nothing to withdraw, and it is on this statement that Mr Reese returns with a challenge. "What I set out to indicate to the House and the country was the undesirable state of affairs, from the commercial and national point of view, ot having in control of a State trading department like the railways a body ol part-time men who were actively interested and engaged in commercial pur suits that might easily conflict with the best interests of the department and their commercial competitors. It was not the policy of the late Govern ment to reveal the particulars of accepted tender prices, and I felt that to place members of the Railway Board in possession of every detail regarding every tender of any magnitude was wrong in principle and unfair to those who were competitors in the same commercial field.

"In this connection, not only did tho department supply every member of the board with a comprehensive statement of al] tenders submitted, containing full details as to prices, physical properties and analyst’s reports (where these were appropriate), but the board members retained these as their personal property. This to my mind was a most undesirable feature in regard to board control. "Coming now to the closing of the department’s sawmill at Mamaku: This mill has a cutting capacity of approximately 3} million superficial feet a year, and at the time it was closed it was cutting approximately three million superficial feet a year. The departmental records show that the general manager and his executive officers were opposed to the closing of the mill on purely economic grounds, and in this they were supported by the chairman of the board, who recorded his dissent against the closing of the sawmill.

"Turning now to the more personal side of the question as it involves statements of fact. Mr Reese states: ‘Notwithstanding the fact that before my appointment to the board I did considerable business with the Railway Department, I have during my five years as a member of the board scrupulously refrained from any business dealings with the Railway Department. Neither my own firm nor my own firm’s sawmilling company has either directly or indirectly tendered for or supplied materials to the Railway Department. ’ "I have in front of me,” said Mr Sullivan, "the departmental files, and I find that on November 29, 1934, the New Forest Sawmilling Co. Ltd., r.f which Reese Bros. Ltd., are managing agents and which Mr Reese has described as ‘my own mill,’ quoted for the supply of 40,252 superficial feet of rimu timber. Again on May 4, 1935, the West Coast Sawmillers’ Association, of which Mr Reese was president, tendered for approximately one million sifperficial feet of rimu timber. I am informed that 80 per cent, of the sawmills on the West Coast belong to the association. The fact that Mr Reese, in accordance with the usual practice of the Railway Board, was supplied with a statement of all the tenders in this ease is a good illustration of my earlier point. "Like Mr Reese, I do not desire to pursue the matter further, and in conclusion I would repeat that I was attacking a system that contained so many inherent defects which the Bill is designed to remove.”