TIMBER INDUSTRY

Hokitika Guardian, 19 November 1929, Page 8

TIMBER INDUSTRY

PRODUCTION AND MARKETING A REPLY.

(Nineteen Twenty-Eight Committee.)

Hie Secretary of the New Zealand Sawmillers’ Federation, who recently attempted to demolish' some frank criticism levelled against the construction of the Timber Industrial Efficiency Rill, a measure he has been seeking during the last year or two to place upon the statute hook, again lias had illfortune to see his magnum opus set aside until “a more convenient season.” His retort to the dissection of the Rill was reminiscent of the advice alleged to have been given by a successful barrister to a younger member of his profession. “When you have no case,” this authority is said to have counselled, “ abuse the other side.” In the course of half a column of good bold print the Secretary of the Sawmillers’ Federation applied the advice of the successful barrister. Without a shadow of proof he, denounced the statements of his critic as “ purely surmise.” “ utter inaccuracy,” “ a diatribe,” “ specious and naive,” “ waste of breath,” “ utterly ridiculous,” “ absolutely incorrect,” and so forth and so on to the length already indicated. One would not like to say that all these empty assertions were intended to disguise the facts of the position ; hut the Secretary would have only■ himself to blame were such an interpretation placed upon his loose and extravagant language. SOME EXAMPLES. It would lie too great a demand upon the hospitality of any newspaper to ask it to publish replies to the whole of the assertions made hv the Secretary of the Sawmillers’ Federation ; but by way of illustrating the flimsy foundations on which they rest it may be permissible to analyse one or two of them. Towards this end a paragraph from the Secretary’s retort may be quoted:— “ Then comes the diatribe against the so-called minority rule if the Timber Industrial Efficiency Hoard were established. The writer of the article under comment refrains from explaining that there is only a difference of 5 per cent., as between the majority required to bring the Roard into being and the majority required to disestablish' it. Also the argument used is specious and naive, for the writer also refrains from explaining that exactly the same argument would apply, in regard to the minority of 33 per cent which may continually prevent 61 per cent of the sawmillers from bringing the Efficiency Roard into being. The argument applies both ways, so it is so much waste breath.”

It will be noticed that in this one paragraph the Secretary of the Federation employs three of the elegant phrases that already have been mentioned. Rut let that pass. MINORITY RULE.

It may he, as the Secretary says, that the argument applies loth ways; but it certainly does not apply both ways in equal measure. To begin with, the votes of 65 per cent of the sawmillers would he required to bring the Bill into operation. But this is not all in this respect. Clause 4of the Act provides that if “ a proposal to bring the Act into operation is rejected the Minister may at any time and from time to time thereafter on petition . . . cause another poll to he taken on the same proposal.” Then in Clause 8, three pages away from the clause just quoted, there is a provision that “if at a poll under this Act the proposal to disestablish the Board is not carried a further poll on a like proposal shall not be taken within three years after the date of the first mentioned poll.” It would he quite possible under these conditions for a large majority of sawmillers, even a majority of 69 per cent, to find themselves at the mercy of a j minority of 31 per cent for a decade or more. The Secretary of the Federation does not dispute this point. “The argument applies both ways,” lie says, “ so it is so much waste breath.” Comment is unnecessary.

INCONCEIVAELE LEGISLATION. Every one of the Secretary’s imputations—all liis charges of surmises, inaccuracies, diatribes and the rest—could be as easily ;yul as effectively refuted as his half-truths and whole misconceptions have been. But observant people are not so Clinch concerned by the constitution of the Efficiency Board, its levies and polls, its inspectors and experts, its audits and penalties, its contracts and regulations, as they are by its menace to legitimate personal liberty and private enterprise. If 25 per cent, or 50 per cent, or 75 per cent, or Of) per cent of the sawmillers wish' to hand themselves together with the laudable object of benefiting their business and themselves by all means let j them do so. But they have no more I rights in this direction than have the I grocers or the merchants or the hank-1 ers or any other section of the com-; munitv. The attempt of a section of the sawmillers, small or great, to drag all the followers of their industry, willy-nilly, into a Federation debarring individual initiative would be a travesty) upon British liberty and fairplay. Tn 1 no part of the Empire, except in war- j time, has such an arbitrary piece of! legislation been attempted, and it is] inconceivable it would be tolerated in ! this country. Competition is not onlv j the soul of business ; it also is an assur- ; mice of justice to the public.