T.—l6.

54

[h. j. h. blow.

Mr. Myers: I cannot draft a clause in an important matter of this kind to meet the case. The proposal contained here is, on the face of it, quite unfair. Then the same observations as I have made with regard to subsection (d) apply to the words " and shall not be renewable," added by Mr. Blow to subsection (c) of section 4. Then there are some other amendments which 1 need not discuss until we arrive at section 6. Mr. Blow strikes out " Provided that in the event of the Court decreeing that such lease shall be forfeited the lessees shall have the right to appeal from such judgment to the Privy Council: Provided further that in lieu of declaring such lease to be forfeited the Court may impose on the lessee a penalty not exceeding £1,000 for any breach of the terms of such lease, (b.) Any judgment imposing a penalty in lieu of forfeiture shall be final and conclusive." Well, sir, 1 think, in a matter of this kind, the strikingout of this provision is quite unfair. Why that should be struck out I cannot understand. No English investor would invest money in a concern of this kind if he thought that he had not the right of appeal to the Home tribunal. Surely, sir, our Court of Appeal may be trusted. The forfeiture of a lease of this kind would involve disastrous results to the company, and the Bill as drafted gives the Court of Appeal the right to say that if a breach was not serious as to merit forfeiture the Court may in lieu of .forfeiture impose a penalty up to £1,000. 1 have no objection to the £1,000 being increased. I think that this is a very sane proviso, and the same power exists in many of the titles under the amending Act. So long as the Court of Appeal has power to impose a fine up to £1,000 I should have thought that would have been sufficient. If it is a more serious breach the Court could forfeit it altogether. Hon. Mr. McKenzie: The Court of Appeal might award £500? Mr. Myers: Mr. Blow 7 says the Court of Appeal might make it £5. We must trust the Court of Appeal, and if they impose a fine of £5 only the inference in their opinion is that that is sufficient. You could make it a daily penalty. I do not think the other amendments require any particular comment, because no doubt we shall have the opportunity of considering the draft Bill when it is brought forward. 77. Mr. Sidey.] Mr. Blow, you expressed the opinion that it would be a profitable thing for the State to manufacture pig iron? —I think so. 78. For the production of pig iron only?—No, I would not say that —I think we should produce steel and put down a rolling-mill; I do not think we could make large profits on the rolled steel, but think we could produce it at a not excessive cost, and pig iron at much less than we can import it for. 79. That would be for our own requirements only?— Why should we not sell? 80. Do you think we could export pig iron? —Yes. 81. What do you think would be the cost of establishing a plant such as you suggest?— We have no experience, but are working from information obtained from outside sources. The Broken Hill Proprietary are spending not less than £1,000,000, and the New South Wales Government has authority to expend from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000. £650,000 would be quite a minimum, but the syndicate say that £650,000 »is sufficient. 82. Do you think the State should establish the industry on the same footing as a private company- ? —We have parted with our leases. If those leases were surrendered I think it would be good business for the State to develop them. 83. Do you suggest we could enter into competition in foreign countries? —If we found that we could export to foreign countries advantageously 1 think we should do so. 84. Do you think it would pay the State to establish a plant purely for local supplies I—l1 —I think so, but I see no reason why we should not do an export trade if we can do it profitably. 85. Supposing you established the plant for local supply, when you take into account that the State would not then pay any subsidy it would then be that much better off, would it not, as- compared with the establishment of a private company? —Yes. 86. Has your Department gone into the thing closely at all? —No. 87. No figures and no data have been worked up? —No proposals have been made to establish anything like that by the Government. 88. Mr. Wilkinson.] In regard to the Parapara and the Onakaka leases, were they not granted under the assumption that works would be established there, Mr. Blow? —Yes; there is a condition in the leases by which they must employ so-many men. 89. Are those conditions being adhered to? —It is too soon to say with regard to Onakaka, and I am not sure as regards Parapara. 90. Do you know whether they are keeping to the conditions? —I have no actual information as regards Parapara lately. 91. In regard to the capital of the company, does it not appear to you that the whole of the capital would be found by the debenture-holders only?— That is so. I understand that £350,000 are all paid-up shares, and that the working capital is to be provided by the debentureholders. 92. Therefore, who takes the risk? —The debenture-holders. 93. Therefore the Parapara people would simply receive shares and some capital?— Yes. 94. Mr. Sidey.] Supposing the plant is established for local supplies only, will the capital required in that case be still as much as £650,000? —Yes, if you are going to put down a steel plant and rolling-mills. 95. Do you suggest it as worth while putting down a plant for pig iron only?—I think it would be quite worth while, but should certainly like to see a steel plant also. 96. What would it cost to put down a plant for pig iron? —Probably much less. 97. Hon. Mr. McKenzie.] Your opinion is, Mr. Blow, that this work can be started without any State aid? —If they can do it in Australia, where conditions are not so favourable, you can make a do of it here.