PRIVATE FORESTRY

Taranaki Daily News, 11 December 1926, Page 6

PRIVATE FORESTRY

service attitude ■MIiVAT’E COMPANIES J-NOT’BST. |||K<Om. 11: ~ I.ALVRATR (.'ON t M . b Except ion co the attitude of tbe State Servicer which was stated to be big to reutriet the operations Kf tree-planting companies by advoeatBng that tree-planting bonds should be ■esued by the Government in competition private enterprise, was taken at eoiifcTenee of afTori-station held in Wellington on Tues.hairirow. Mr. W. M.-Ai tlmr eiatid that trere was a that ilii State might an. iniioferi’ wiOi tin- .’onclm.t f<O‘-“tvy projects. This was iron. r<.-eoniine>i<)r.tions made re annual report cf :he State Service, and the '■eeommrnd.'itions in that report were causing to thi-ee people who had invest-i-apitnl in tree-plaaling comTim depaitment roeomn.ended formation of .’ommnniiy rmloiv-ic-iTsts by the State Forest Serand also sale of individual intertherein to the investing public.” I in amplification of this recommendation the Director of Forestry stated: ‘‘There is no organisation in New ‘ Zealand more competent to render this profitable service to the investor,and backed by the guarantee of the State the participator in State Forest, endowments would be absolutely assured of the safety and efficient management of his investment, and if one can judge by the investment of the public in the many and diverse tree-planting company ventures at present offering shares and other rights in New Zealand, the response to State offerings should be a generous one.” It was contended by Mr. McArthur that the wording of this recommendation should be carefully noted, particularly the expression "the many and diverse tree.planting company ventures at present offering shares and other rights in New Zealand.” Such language as that at once created in the mind of the reader the impression that investments in the private tree-planting companies now operating in New Zealand were, to say the least, speculative. Such an inference was strengthened after reading the further following recommendation by the department: "A safe measure of statutory control of private and public companies organised for treeplanting purposesNvith a view to adequately protecting the investor against incompetent management and loss.” "Should by any chance,” added Mr. McArthur, “these two recommendations be adopted by the Government, just consider what the effect might be on private forestry. The State would be issuing forestry endowment bonds in competition with private industrial forestry companies, but what is more insidious, would also have the right to control the management of the companies' it was competing with. Is it not conceivable ‘ that the State Forest Service eould harass private forestry companies to such an extent as to make it difficult for them to operate and carry on their tree-planting businesses, and consequently force the investing public to purchase State forestry bonds? Such a policy would result in an unwarranted interference in private industry, would stifle healthy competition among tree-planting .companies, and would create the Director of Forestry for the time being the dictator of the tree-planting policies of all private afforestation companies, and moreover, etich interference with healthy private enterprise would be ‘ a distinct contravention of the Government’s avowed policy of ‘more business in Government, and less Government in business.’ ”

While no one would dispute the responsibility of the State to provide for future supplies of timber, he said, it could reasonably be argued that direct action by the State became unnecessary when the situation was being met by private enterprise. .If the . aforementioned slogan of the present Government was sincere, the curtailment of State, enterprise and the encouragement of private enterprise was inferential. The present drift of some Government Departments was towards bureaucratic control of industries. Could it be said that these departments were inspired by a desire to produce profits which would relieve the taxpayer of his burden ? The results usually achieved by State-controlled industries could not be shown to l>e a success financially, nor be taken as an example to private industry of economical and efficient management. It was therefore very necessary for all’ sections of the community to take active steps to resist the encroachment of the State in any attempt to dominate the industries, of the country by bureaucratic control. The policy of the Government, or any other Government Department, he declared. should be to fnoourage and asfeist private industry in every reason, able way. It ehould not be the function of any State Department to compete unfairly with private enterprise, but father to show by practical experiment how the value or volume of all industrial products could be increased.