13

J, B. LAUEENSON.

1.—16.

28. Could they make it and export it at a price?— The company might be able to do so. If they can make pig iron in New Zealand at the same price as they can at Home, then they will be able to export it, 1 should say, if they can find a market. 29. Hon. Mr. Fraser.] Can they? —That is the. question. 30. Mr. G. M. Thomson,] You referred to basic slag: do you know what quantity of phosphorus requires to be in crude iron before putting up basic-slag converters? —From L 3 to T5 of phosphorus in the iron. 31. Would it pay to put up a Bessemer converter to convert iron in that quantity?—l understand that they have had the ore tested, and they say the iron here is quite good enough. 32. I suppose you know the principle at Home : when the mild-steel process came in they had to import other irons to make steel, and then the Thomas-Gilchrist process enabled them to use two grades of iron and use much phosphorus. Would it be possible to put up Bessemer converters?—l cannot say; these people have inquired into it very carefully, and that is all I know. 33. We have constantly heard that basic slag is one of the by-products that is going to pay us, but we have not got sufficient phosphorus?— There are two very interesting articles on the basic-slag question in the Agricultural Journal for June and July. Germany used 885,000 tons of it last year. It is a first-class fertilizer. 34. Mr. Sidey.] When you stated that this company could produce iron as cheaply in New Zealand as in the Old Country, is that your own calculation? —No; I am not in a position to make a calculation. Calculations have been made by Dr. Bell, also by Mr. Scott Anderson, and various other gentlemen who have gone into the matter. 35. Are their computations on record? —Yes. 36. Can you hand them in to the Chairman?— Yes; I will make copies of them, and send them in to the Chairman. 37. You have examined them yourself?— Yes. I got them from the Parapara Company. 38. Are the conditions, say, as regards wages between the two countries similar? —No. In calculations as to cost of production they have doubled the whole of the wages, so as to make it apply to New Zealand. 39. Even supposing the iron is produced as cheaply here by a saving of £2 in cost of freight, it does not follow that the manufacturers here would get the benefit of that £2?— No. 40. The London market would regulate the price here?—lt might. In view of the fact that the Government would probably be getting their iron at £2 12s. 6d., and buying at that price, and the Home people were asking us to pay £5 55., it is not likely the people of New Zealand would put up with that, because the Government could buy for the manufacturers themselves. 41. I think the company would probably have something to say about that?—l think the Government would very much prefer to do as 1 suggest, rather than open up the tariff question. Supposing we were not buying anything from them at all, looking at it purely from the point of view of the Government as being the highest purchaser, the offer would be in favour of the Government. 42. You say, if your facts are correct, if it could be produced here at the same cost as at Home, the Government would save £2 per ton in freight?—l do not know- exactly what the Government use; but they laid down 9,900-odd tons of rails last year; if there is a saving of £1 or £2 per ton, that means £18,000-odd in their pockets on rails alone. 43. You think it would pay this country to pay that subsidy for forty years?— Yes; I am quite satisfied about that —I and the members of our association. £237,239 was paid in bonuses last year in Canada, and in fifteen years Canada paid £3,462,308 as bounties for the production of iron and steel; and during 1896-1910 the production rose from 81,801 tons in 1896 to 1,530,436 tons in 1910. 44. You do not think, from the company's point of view, that they are asking too high a subsidy? —No, especially as the Government can resume at forty years free. 45. You are aware that if the thing runs for forty years the company- is practically getting its principal and interest back by the subsidy?— And the Government will be handed the works, which have cost them nothing, at the end of that time. Of course, there must be some contract entered into with regard to renewals and upkeep. 46. Mr. Craigie.] Mr. Laurenson, as one who knows a good deal about the iron trade and requirements of New Zealand, supposing we put up a plant for the requirements of New Zealand only, and that we had to compete against the markets of the world, would that be a disadvantage compared with a larger concern which would be better equipped and have more expensive plant? —I think the larger plant would decidedly tend towards reduction in cost. The difference in cost of production between a small and a large plant is very considerable. 47. And you think as a citizen we are not giving away any of our rights—you think it is more for the good of New Zealand than anything else?—l think it is in the best interests- of New Zealand, and an opportunity we are not likely to get again. 48. Hon. Mr. McKenzie.] Did you see any reason why the Government should not include a provision in the Bill that the company should sell at cost price plus 5 per cent, to the consumer? —I should like very much to see that. 49. Do you not think it would be a profitable investment for them to do so?—I think if it were profitable to sell at 5 per cent, on 15,000 tons to the Government, surely it would be profitable to sell to the private individual at 5 per cent, on 109,251 tons. 50. This is being established in competition with the iron and steel manufacturers of Australia independent of the Home people?— Yes. 51. Do you think they would go into competition with Australia ?—lt depends upon the protective tariff.