SAWMILLERS OBJECTIONS

Hokitika Guardian, 25 November 1924, Page 4

SAWMILLERS OBJECTIONS

TO HOUSING PROPOSALS. AYKLLINGTON, November 20. The Railway Commission lias had. evidence tendered it by Mr Seed, secretary of the Dominion Saw millers’ Federation, in the course of which strong exception was taken to the Railway Department's cut-to-fit housing enterprise at Frankton. also its timber-cut-ting operations, which in the case of the Aoakti sawmill amounted last year to an out|iut of four million super feed.

-Mr Seed said that sawiuiilers questioned the wisdom or even expediency on general economic grounds, of the railways running sawmills. Their concern was not so much that these mills were at present actively competing in the open market, but owing to the high percentage of these grades relative to requirements they had grave apprehension that stocks of lower grade timbers would accumulate to be later thrown upon the market. That had occurred at Maaku in a minor degree from time to time, at prices generally lower than the market value. It had been stated in Parliament and by the newspapers that the railway sawmill and house factory were producing more cheaply than private undertakings were ahle to produce. Apart from the serious effect of these statements had upon the sawmillim? industry. their accuracy was seriously questioned by sawiuiilers, since from observation it was extremely doubtful whether the railway mills were performing their service hotter or more cheaply than could private undertakings. It urged that the commission should recommend that the cost and accounts of railway sawmills, hushes and house factory should he entirely separate.l from llie railway accounts, that the whole of the eanital costs ol these undertakings should In; shown as a separate account, that their accounts and costing system should he kept on commercial lines, that all items ol interest, overhead charges, in lact every item ol cost that Hi.' private sawmilh-r was called upon to hear, should he similarly 'barged against these undertakings. It was contended that such accounts shorn! lie published, lie contended that the true costs of any Government or municipal undertaking could not he disclosed tinli-s it was subject to all the charges home hv private enterprises ol a similar nature, including all rates and taxes. If the Government undertook to perform a service or to produce a commodity, the machinery and organisation for which was already amply provided by private undertak-

ings. then even if that service of production was pcrtoriucd without actual loss, the State was poorer by just that amount of revenue which would he provided hv nrivaie com crus whose activities the Government undertakings might have displaced. Unlimited incomplete Government absorption of private enterprise would necessarily deprive the State of all sources of revenue from income tax and thus precipitate financial stringency.