SODIUM CHLORATE

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 76, Issue 6533, 30 June 1948, Page 7

SODIUM CHLORATE

SHORTAGE OF SUPPLIES WAIPA COUNTY COUNCIL EXPRESSES CONCERN The report of the noxious weeds inspector, Mr G. M. Wall, as adopted by the Waipa County Council at Monday’s meeting, read as follows: “This month there is not a great deal to report. The work of clearing the road frontages is still proceeding, and in this connection a good deal of office work has been necessary. There are one or two ratepayers who are not co-operating with the council in this matter, and they been notified that if they do not comply with the Act, by a given date, the council will institute proceedings.

“The position as regards supplies of sodium chlorate is still obscure, and I have written to one firm asking them, in the event of any shipments arriving, not to overlook our order for five tons, which was placed with them last January. In the past this has happened, and we have been faced with having to buy at retail rates. “Noxious weeds growing along the sides of roads abutting on land occupied by the Air Force, are in need of attention. I have written twice to the Department without any results. Perhaps the most satisfactory way to deal with the problem would be to use allocation funds for the purpose, and charge it as work done on Crown lands. “Sales of sodium and lime mixture from the depot for the month have been 3 tons 12 cwt.” Crs Hall and Houchen favoured the work at the Air Force being done, the latter stating that the Air Force should set a good example and in addition they had labour available with which to do the work.

Cr Dudley considered that the Air Force had been discourteous not replying to Mr Waif. Cr Cunningham pointed out that at Rukuhia the road frontages had to be cut before grading could be done. The chairman (Mr Onion) said that they should take the matter up with the Department. The clerk (Mr T. Grant) pointed out that the Crown was not bound by the Noxious Weeds Act, but he believed that the cost could be recovered by a grant. It was decided to write to the Department. The chairman expressed concern at the sodium chlorate position. It had proved to be the best weedicide and if they could not get supplies they would have to use substitutes which were not nearly as satisfactory. Cr Dudley supported the chairman’s remarks. Cr Hall referred to the fact that sodium chlorate had been manufactured in New Zealand and he believed that the firm who did so would do so again.

At this stage a letter from the firm concerned was read, to the effect that no further supplies were expected in New Zealand for some time. They had stocks of a named substitute which they offered to supply to the council. The chairman characterised the position as revealed in the letter as being regrettable. Mr Wall favoured asking the Government to institute enquiries as to whether sodium chlorate was dangerous to transport as was alleged. In reply to a question, Mr Wall said that while the price of the two substances were the same, more of the substitute would have to be used.

Cr Russell said the failure to get sodium chlorate would cause hardship to many rate payers. It was decided to seek information as to the danger of sodium chlorate.

Cr Duncan said that in view of the fact that sodium chlorate had been imported into New Zealand for 13 or 14 years, the latest move appeared to be a racket.

Cr Reid said that if they gave way on this occasion they (the firm) might adopt a similar attitude all the time.

When Cr Church asked who was responsible for the restriction on the import of sodium chlorate, the chairman said that there was no actual restriction, but because of an explosion concerned with the material in Melbourne, transport workers would not handle it. It was decided on the motion of Crs Hall and Reid to ask the firm concerned to supply the sodium chlorate as ordered.