NO MONOPOLY

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 146, 22 June 1945, Page 6

NO MONOPOLY

LOCAL FIRM'S AIM

"WE WOULDN'T WANT IT"

No monopoly of tyre manufacture in New Zealand is sought by Reid (New Zealand) Rubber Mills, one of the two Dominion rubber manufacturing companies which are among the 10 applicants for a license to make motor vehicle tyres in this country. This assurance was given this morning by Mr. A. M. Seaman, chairman of directors of the company, in commenting on the English cable. He said that his company, if it were granted a license, was r*ot proposing a factory that would be capable of stipprying the whole Dominion market.

"This will surely demonstrate that we are not seeking for a prohibition of competition," he declared. He would make' no comment on the policy aspects of the question. That was, he pointed out, for the Government to decide. If it was decided by the authorities that a license for the manufacture of- tyres should be granted to the Dominion, he was sure that no intention existed of granting a single monopoly license. "We personally wouldn't want it if we were successful in our application."

Mr. Seaman pointed out that when tyre manufacture was declared a licensed industry in New Zealand early in 1939 applications were called from intending tyre makers. No licenses were granted, however, and the war intervened. The question was reopened in April of this year, when the Bureau of Industry informed applicants that it was prepared to give further consideration to the question.

Mr. Seaman said that had a license been granted in 1939 there was no doubt that New Zealand would have been in a much better position from the point of view of tyre supplies during the war years than she had been with shipping, as well as procurement difficulties to face. As far as quality of production was concerned an organisation existed whereby the results of the latest overseas research could be made accessible to local manufacturers. Met Competition Referring to the criticism offered of New Zealand-made milking machine rubbers, Mr. Seaman said that his company actually entereti that market 12 years ago when no restrictkms existed, and it had not sought any alteration in tariffs. They had started in a small way in the face of overseas competition and had been successful in winning the greater part of the market. Before restrictions were imposed their only serious competitor in the field was Australia.

In regard to the general manufacture of rubber goods, Mr. Seaman said that the quality of local goods had been maintained through the war years, subject only to certain restrictions imposed by the authorities to conserve rubber supplies. "Criticism that has been levelled against the quality of rubber goods offering on the market in the war years has been based on pre-war standards," he said. "I would like to point out that during the war manufacturers have not been free to determine for themselves the quality of their product, but have been compelled to adhere to war-imposed standards. This has been true not only of New Zealand manufactured goods but of those manufactured in other countries also." If the industry had not been placed under license in 1938 it was certain, he said, that his company would have been manufacturing tyres long ago, starting on a small scale. It was recognised that a factory producing from 500 to 750 tyres a day was the most economical manufacturing unit. There was no great economical benefit to be gained by largescale manufacturing.

Position in War Years "We are confident that had we been able to develop in a natural way we would have been manufacturing quality goods on sutih a scale that the position regarding tyres would have been much better m this country during the war years/' Mr. Seaman pointed-out that the rubber industry in New Zealand had been of vital importance to the country in the period of war difficulty, and its achievements had been considerable. Among other things it had produced many thousands ot solid rubber tyres for Bren gun carriers These had been subjected to the most rigorous army tests and had proved entirely satisfactoiy. Where the British manufacturers got their figures from regarding the number of employees that would be needed in the New Zealand tyre manufacturing industry Mr. Seaman said he did not know. Ideas varied on the question, but he was certain that the number required would be substantially above the figures sSdV .Seaman, the English protest seemed to be directed against any policy ot licensing the manufacture of motor tyres in the Dominion. That was a matter for the Government to answer. It was of interest, however, that the Bureau of Industry had sent a questionnaire to applicants for licenses, which included an inquiry as to whether it was anticipated that the prices to be charged for tyres and tubes made here would be equal to, greater than, or less than, those for imported tyres, under normal conditions, and also whether the intending manufacturers would be asking for protection either by tariff for' by complete prohibition of imports. "Applicants must presume," he said, "that the Government is watching the public interest in regard to those points." From inquiries among distributors to-day it was ascertained that, of the ; five companies named in the London cable, only two had supplied the New Zealand market with car tyres ■ on any large scale in pre-war years. They were the Michelin Tyre Co. and the Avon India Rubber Co.

It is understood that the ten applications known to have been made for licenses include three New Zealand companies. The other applicants represent British, American and Australian companies.