STATE FORESTRY

Taranaki Daily News, 27 November 1926, Page 11

STATE FORESTRY

IS IT A FAILURE? MR MAXWELL REPLIES TO THE MINISTER. Mr. E. Maxwell, Opunake, writes: — Some time back a letter over the signature of the Hon. the Commissioner of. State Forests appeared, since when there have been two columns of matter on the subject from the Forest Service with a promise of further matter for which I have been waiting, but which, if it has appeared, I have failed to see. I am waiting with interest to see how much further it will commit itself.

I made quite clear, beyond question, my object in writing, viz., that seeing it was proposed that the State should step in to protect investors and take control of all forestry operations, public and private, it was advisable to review the position and qualifications of the State Forest Service and operations, so that a fair opinion could be formed as to what warrant there is for the astounding presumption in the claim put forward that the State Forest Service oniy is fitted to render competent service and prevent mismanagement. Now as to the Hon. the Minister's letter, I will give him the benefit of the assumption that, though appearing over his signature, it was not written by him, but I would first suggest that he has been treated very badly in that the matter was such as should only have been dealt, with by one having a knowledge of forestry. Such a one could not have written the letter; therefore I have to thank the Minister for being the channel through which further evidence is afforded of the inefficiency of the service to even attend to its own affairs, let alone those of all forestry operations, public and private. The letter is in no way a reply to the criticisms. Whilst in part it consists of a paltry attempt to belittle the criticiser, it contains an absurdity that no forester could have been guilty of, viz., that no one cojill have knowledge of State afforestation operations justifying criticisms unless officially conducted. I presume the writer means that it was necessary to be conducted through the plantations by an official who would explain matters. It would be no more absurd to say that an engineer could not tell the make, quality and state of repair of an engine unless he inspected it “officially”unless an officiall accompanied him to instruct.

There are only two references touching on any of my criticism, and these two are unfortunate. (1) “The author neglects the important point ‘that the service was reorganised seven years ago.” I beg to state with all due deference, but emphatically, that that is not correct. It is regrettable that a Minister of the Crown should append his signature to such a preposterous statement. I made distinct reference to the fact that the new regime had been running seven years, and most of my criticisms refer to that period, to the misleading statements and. returns, unfair and. grossly misleading comparisons with past operations, continuance of wrong location (the Minister obligingly says 42,000 acres out of G3,00U acres were planted under the new regime), 42,000 acres in worse location than that previously planted, methods of planting, neglect of thinning, paltry financial returns, what afforestation is costing the taxpayer, etc. (2) The writer of the Minister’s letter, in a peculiarly muddled paragraph, which brings the Belgium, forests under French control and. includes them in French afforested areas, says my reference to European forests is “most unfortunate.” Why? I thank the Minister of Controls —I beg his pardon, I mean, I thank the writer of the letter —for bringing forward the statement that European suburban forests are partly communal, and that some of those ot France are under’ Stats control. I thought everyone interested in or having anything to do with forestry knew that," but the point is that I only referred to these forests in connection with “location,” comparing their great and fatal advantages of right location with the great drawbacks of wrong location of the New Zealand State planted forests. Both State and private planters in Europe seem to have known what was right, but the “reformed” service of seven years has plants! 42,00-0 at Waiotapu and Kaingaroa in wrong location, more and more remote. Where, therefore, is the “unfortunate example?” There is only one other matter in the letter, and that is the use of the stock method of evading the main issue by trotting out the suggestion of interested motives. That and the suggestion that I am connected with a company that fears investigation are so contemptible that I must express my regret that the Minister should have so far degraded the position of a Minister of the Crown as to allow- such a document to carry his signature.

Again I have to thank the Minister for adding still further evidence of serious lack in the service, for while the above scandalous imputations were being signed by the Minister, in his department there was material available for -to use the most polite terms possible under the circumstances—its most fiat refutation in that the Director of Forests, together with two of his officers, had inspected, the property and operations of the company I am connected with and had expressed in unstinted terms appreciation of the situation, soil, aspect and general conditions and of the quality of the work being carried on with only one reservation—and had congratulated the company on its bright prospects. He had received the fullest information as to the- promoters, the formation of the company, and of its directors, and was tendered all information as to its finances. In face of the above there is one and one only course open to an honourable man.