PRIVATE FORESTRY

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 63, 8 December 1926, Page 10

PRIVATE FORESTRY

ATTITUDE OF STATE SERVICE PRIVATE COMPANIES RAISE PROTEST ALLEGED BUREAUCRATIC CONTROL Exception to the attitude of the State Forest Service, which was stated to be endeavouring to restrict the operations of treeplanting companies by advocating’ that tree-planting bonds should be issued by the Government in competition with private enterprise, was taken at a Dominion conference of afforestation companies, held in Wellington yesterday.

The chairman, Mr. W. McArthur (Auckland), stated that there was a grave danger that the State might unnecessarily interfere with the conduct of private forestry projects. , This was indicated from recommendations made in the recent annual report of the State Forest Service; and the recommendations enunciated in that report were causing concern to those people who had invested their capital in tree-planting companies. The Department recommended “the formation of community endowment forests by the State -Forest. Service, and also "sale of individual inter; cst therein to the investing public, while in amplification of this recommendation the Director <rf Forestry stated: “There is no organisation in New Zealand more competent to render this profitable service to the investor and backed bv 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 treeplanting 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 othe.r 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 organiser! for tree-planting purposes with 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 could harrass 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 treeplanting policies of all private afforestation companies., and moreover, such 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, be said, it could reasonably be argued that direct action by the State became unnecessary when the situatioh was being met by private enterprise. If the aforementioned slogan of the present Govern- , inent was sincere, the curtailment of State enterprise and the encouragement of private enterprise was inferential. The present drift of some Government Departments was toward bureaucratic control of industries. Could it he said that these Departments worn inspired by a desire to .produce profits which would relieve the taxpayer of bis burden? The results usually achieved by State controlled industries could not bo shown to be a success financially, nor be taken as an example to private industry of economical nnd efficient management. It was therefore very necessary for all sections of the community to take active 'stops to resist lhe eneroachment 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 bo to encourage and assist private industry, in every reasonable way. If should not bo the fu.nction of any State Department to eqmnote unfairly with’ private enterprise, but rather to show by prneficnl experiment how the value nrvolw>e of all industrial produets could bo increased.