TYRE RETREADERS AND GOVERNMENT WORKFLEX-GRIP PROCESS

Grey River Argus, 14 October 1949, Page 5

TYRE RETREADERS AND GOVERNMENT WORK-FLEX-GRIP PROCESS

F.A. WELLINGTON, October 13. In the House of Representatives today, Mr C. R. Petrie (Govt., Otahuhu) on behalf of the Industries and Commerce Committee, reported on a petition by Hawke’s Bay Tyre Rebuilders, Ltd., and thirteen others (all of whom are members of thq New Zealand Tyre Retreaders’ Association). Their petition was presented last year. It asked that the retreading or recapping of Government tyres should not be confined solely to the flex grip process, and that the method of calling for tenders for the work be reintroduced, or, alternatively, that the work be fairly distributed among the retreaders throughout New Zealand. The Committee’s recommendation was that the petition be referred to the Government for reconsideration. Mr C. M. Bowden (Nat., Karori) said there were 53 retreading firms throughout New Zealand. He could not understand why the Government should have put up £6OOO against £lOOO on the part of the proprietor in this case, to develop the process of retreading, or recapping, which had not been proven, and which, after a few weeks, had been found to be unsatisfactory. The company into which the Government had paid £6OOO did not own the patent rights of process. There was a likelihood of the Government having to pay royalties. Several agents had given up using the process in favour of the conventional method of recapping tyres. One estimate was that the Government work would be worth £lOO,OOO. Evidence had been given to the Committee that the cost of the new process was not cheaper than the conventional process, and that tenders had not been called for Government work. He was satisfied that the full story of why the Government was induced to put up £6OOO had not been told to the Committee. He considered the Government should take steps to call the Retreaders’ Association into consultation to see if some scheme could not be devised in order that all firms could share in Government business. Mr J. Mathison (Govt., Avon) said that, while h‘ e thought the Government should call all the parties together to see if an agrement could be reached, he did not agree with the view that the Government should not have invested money in the company. It was well known that certain vested interests purchased patent rights simply to prevent new processes from being put on the market. Mr Mathison said that the retreaders in tine Association did not object to a monopoly, but objected to not being in it. He believed that the new system had great possibilities, which would have been lost if the Government had not acted as it did in making • some finance available to the company, of which the inventor of the flex-grip process was a director. The evidence had been that, although the cost of the new process had been, to date, somewhat higher than that of conventional retreading, it promised to be the more durable job, and it would probably be the more economic job in the long run. Mr Mathison said that he supported the Committee’s recommendation, and he felt that efforts should be made to bring the interested parties togethei’ in the interests of the trade. Rt. Hon. W. Nash said that he would be glad to' look further into the matter, and he would be happy if the process was such as to warrant a re-distribution of the Government business on a wider basis. Mi’ Nash said that, if the members of the Association were now prepared, as apparently they were, to use the flex-grip process in order to obtain Government work, he thought that agreement between the parties could be reached. But the Government ought not to be placed in the position of giving work to those who were pledged not to have anything to do with the new system. Mr Nash said that he would take the matter up with the directors of the company, on the basis of the Government’s interest in the company, to see what arrangements can be made. Mr Petrie, summing up the discussion, said that he saw no obstacle to a satisfactory agreement if the petitioners -were now prepared to approach the matter in a co-operative attitude, instead of with the hostility which had been evident in the past. The Committee's report was adopted.