Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

State To Pay 1d A Ton Compensation For Coal?

WELLINGTON, Fri. (P.A.). —Total compensation payable to coal owners under the Coal Bill would probably be about £1,000,000, for which the state would acquire possibly ] ,000,000,000 tons of coal. This meant a payment of only about Id a ton, which was inadequate, in view of the fact that royalties the owners had received up to the present ranged up to 1/- a ton. Mr C. M. Bowden (O —Karori) said this in the House of Representatives today when the debate on the bill was resumed.

The owners had at least some millions invested in coal and to offer them i'I.OQC.QOO in full compensation was absurd.

They would have to fight even for this sum and the process, on the Minister’s admission, was likely to take years.

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. COST IN SUBSIDIES The cost by way of subsidies paid to private enterprise was £67,200 in 1046, an increase of £ 12,000 on the previous year, said Mr A. E. Armstrong (G —Napier). Mr Doidge: But the state mines gel three times as much as the amount paid to private enterprise. The point, said Mr Armstrong, was that private enterprise had had to be subsidised to the tune of millions of pounds over recent years. , It was scandalous that malpractices in the winning of coal had been allowed to go on. Mr W. S. Goosman (O —Piako) said the miners did not have grievances today as serious as they had in past years and he agreed with (he Minister of Labour that they were better off than they had ever been. CONDITIONS BETTER 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 come from the Old Country.

Mr F. W. Doidge (O—Tauranga) said the Minister had made it plain that the bill was part of the Government’s plan for the complete nationalisation of the coal industry. The onus was on the Government to prove that nationalisation would be in the public interest. This the Minister had failed to do. LOSS LAST YEAR 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.

It could not be claimed, he continued, 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 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. BUREAUCRATIC FAILURE Coal had become dearer, instead of cheaper, Sir Charles Reid, the production chief, had resigned from the National Coal Board, declaring that he had no confidence in the board or the organisation set up, and the Coal Board was breaking up while the system of administration was breaking down.

Such feelings, he hoped, would be overcome.

Leaders of, the industry had a duty not to allow trivial disputes to upset the rest of the community.

The bill had very little to do with the actual mining of coal and hac been used by the Government as the 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. 13 YEARS TO STOP WASTE Mr Goosman said the wastage of which the Minister had complainec" had been going on during the 13 years the Government had been in power. No one was justified in wasting a commodity which was required by the community, yet it had been in the Government’s power for the last If years to lay down rules to prevent wastage of coal. The Minister had quoted no cases of efficient minework, and he had no doubt exaggerated to suit his own case The chief objective of the bill was the confiscation of the ownership oi coal.

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

If the Government was going to get away with that it would not be long before the present action would be used as a precedent and argument tc enable it to confiscate and nationalise other things. ONE TEST Mr C. H. Chapman (G—Wellington Central) said the Opposition took the stand that, all-; private enterprise was good, but jthejfLeader of the Opposition now said that public welfare should be supreme. The Government said the emphasis should be on the public welfare to a much greater extent than the opinions of, the Leader of the Opposition, who however, was gradually coming the Government's way. There was one test—would the Opposition vote for the bill which would service the public interest and conserve the rights of the workers in the industry? MERITS NO SUPPORT’

Mr T. L Macdonald (O—Mataura) said the bill would do nothing to make more coal available lor industrial or domestic use, nor would it attract any more young men to the industry. Most of the coal below ground surface was already owned by the state and the bill was “unnecessary at the present time.” Tire Minister of Mines was more concerned with the advancement of the socialistic doctrine than in a realistic approach to problems of the industry. In his opinion, the bill merited no support whatever. The debate was interrupted by the adjournment. Three Hunfly Mines Still idle AUCKLAND, Fri. (P.A.). Three Huntly collieries Macdonald, Glen Afton and Pukemiro—were idle again today. The miners are still rejecting the union recommendation to resume work. The union executive last night reaffirmed its decision to have the matter referred to the local mining disputes committee.

It is understood that the executive pointed out that other collieries and open-cast mines were working and that a majority vote of all miners had favoured settlement by the disputes committee.

Stop-work meetings, each lasting about an hour, were held this morning at the Rotowaro, Alison and Renown mines before the men started work.

The Wilson mine at Glen Massey and the three open-cast mines arc working normally.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NA19480813.2.86

Bibliographic details

Northern Advocate, 13 August 1948, Page 6

Word Count
1,087

State To Pay 1d A Ton Compensation For Coal? Northern Advocate, 13 August 1948, Page 6

State To Pay 1d A Ton Compensation For Coal? Northern Advocate, 13 August 1948, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert