ANXIOUS TO PROCEED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLII, Issue 20514, 4 September 1936, Page 8

ANXIOUS TO PROCEED

PAPER MILL COMPANY HAGGLE OVER WATER RIGHTS By Telegraph Pres* association WELLINGTON, September 3. In the House this afternoon, the third reading of the Whakatahe Paper Mills, Ltd. Water Supply Empowering Bill was moved by Mr C. H. Burnett (Lab., Tautanga), who said the company had expended a large sum of money and the shareholders had indicated that they were anxious that the company should proceed. The Prime Minister (Rt. Hoti. M. J. Savage) submitted that the Bill might be allow’ed to proceed but it could not stop at that. It Seemed tb him that an obligation was on the Government to have a complete investigation hot only of the ramifications of that particular concern but of the whole of the concerns involved ill forestry in New Zealand. The Government would not try to evade its responsibilities. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates: Would the inquiry involve newsprint? Mr Savage said it would involve everything dealt with by that company. They should have a tribunal to say whether the company should be allowed to continue. The company could proceed now, but it wanted certain rights and Was trying to push the Government into giving Something it Was not prepared to give withodt first going into it. The Government did not want to block the indusfty but the company should justify itself to some tribunal other than Parliament. The Bill, he suggested, should be allowed to pass and it could, if necessary, be amended in the Legislative Council. The Rt. Hoh. G. W. Forbes (Leader of the Opjposltidn), welcomed the Idea of the investigation suggested by the Prime Minister and said the Opposition would give the Government every assistance. Tire Hon. P. Fraser said the Government came into the matter only on a question of national honour, and the Government had to protect New Zealand’s good name. Th Bill would pass no matter how much members spoke, and he claimed that Mr Savage’s suggestion was an excellent one. After discussion Mr F. W. Schramm moved the adjournment of the debate. This was challenged but the motion was carried by 46 votes to 17.