The Daily News FRIDAY, JUNE 8. THE PARAPARA LEASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8129, 8 June 1906, Page 2

The Daily News FRIDAY, JUNE 8. THE PARAPARA LEASE.

A coBBESPOirDEJiT in our columns ; recently expressed astonishment to find the Press so solicitous for the elimination of Clause 14 from the Parapara lease, and was unkind enough to assure us that we " positively haven't any conception as to where our polioy in allowing ourselves to be hoodwinked by a few grab-alls is leading us." Our correspondent is evidently one of thoso rabid industry nationalisers who would prefer that our natural resources should remain for ever in their virgin state rather than that priyato enterprise should be allowed to exploit them for its own and the colony's benefit. With this particular species of the genus homo we cannot see eye to eye. While expressing no particular opinions on the question of State development of our mineral wealth, we at the same time do not advocate the elimination ot Clause 14 from motiyes of opposition to State control. What we do say, and havo consistently advocated, is that if the State is not prepared to dovclop the colony's mineral wealth, no obstacle should be placed in the way of private enterprise engaging in the task.

It has been abundantly demonstrated that Clause 14, as it at present stands, represents an obstacle fatal to tke flotation of the iron and steel manufacturing company. Were there tke remotest possibility of the expunging of the clause from the terms of the lease resulting in tho setting up of a monopoly inimical to the interests of the workers, and the colony generally, our advocacy would be for the insertion of the severest safeguards possible. But to assert that a company which owns only some nine hundred of the thousands of acres of ore bearing country in New Zealand would, if giyen a measure ot freedom for their operations, result in the influx of a class of capital " that will shoot down its workmen if they dare to protest for their rights," is ridiculous in the extreme. Our view of the matter is perfectly clear. Vast mineral resources, the development of which would lift the colony to the front as a manufacturing nation, and incidentally open up new avenues for labor, are lying idle and reproductive. We want these resources turned to account.

The State, apparently, is not desirous of undertaking the responsibility, and while expressing the hope that private enterprise would come to the rescue, has set up conditions with which labor, no more than capital, could be expected to conform. While we believe that Clause 14 might, without fear of future regrets, be entirely eliminated in this particular case, we at the same time support the intention of the clause. What is wrong is that the " safeguarding " has been so overdone, that there is never likely to be any chance of the clause having the opportunity to be put into operation. The conditions are unfair and unreasonable. The Government takes no risk, and stands on velvet, so to speak. It is a sort of " heads I win, tails you lose " arrangement. In short, it is the extreme unreasonableness of the clause, rather than its intention, that is the stumblingblock. As the lease at present stands, the Government has tho power at any time to step in and acquire tho whole of tho company's works and properties at a valuation. If it is decmod expedient to still include tho spirit of this safeguarding clauso, even at the risk of throttling tho establishment of the industry altogether, let a little reason, common-scnso and fairness be used in its conditions. If the time at which the Government might exercise ils right to resume the works were explicitly stated, tho difficulty might —we cannot say that It would—be overcome,

Tim very fact that thero are thousands of acres of ore bearing and iron sand country available in New Zealand awaiting exploitation, is to our mind, however, sufficient safeguard. If the proposed New Zealand Iron & Steel Company is successfully established, a'ul demonstrates that the industry can, with profit, be carried on in the colony, there exists no obstacle —unless the Legislature devises one—to the establishment of as many other companies as there is iron bearing country to accommodate. The State could also, if it then desired, also set itself up as a competitor in the trade. We view this question from the broad point of view of our country's welfare, which is at present being hindered by irksome restrictions, bo long as our interests as a people are not jeopardised, we arc not concerned with the personnel of the ironsancl company. We care not whether it be by State or private enterprise, so long as 110 more time is lost in the establishment of the industry.