Cement Charges

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XI, Issue 241, 15 October 1921, Page 5

Cement Charges

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION., ALLEGED PKICE CONTROL AND I “COMBINE.” — I Wellington, Oct. 14. The warrant appointing a commission, under’ the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1908, promised by i*±e Government. to inquire into and report up»n the allegations made recently in tho House by Mr. R. Masters (Stratford), relating to tho production, distribution, importation, and price of cement during certain periods of control by the Board of Trade, was signed this morning by the Governor-General. As previously stated the commission is to be presided over by Mr Justice Sim. The scope of the commission was made available this afternoon by the Minister of Industries and Commerce. It is as follows:— (1) Whether tho Board of Trade in December, 1920, in sanctioning a maximum retail price of cement of New Zealand manufacture of £9 13s Gd per ton, ex store in Wellington, was guilty of any impropriety or of a grievous error | of judgment.

(2) Whether the companies manufacJ turing cement in New Zealand during the period of the acute shortage of cement, from January 1, 1920, and thereafter, took advantage of the excess of the demand over the supply to extort unreasonably high prices from the public. (3) Whether the agreement dated May 5, 1921, set out in tho schedule hereto constituted an offence against the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910, or any other Act, or was in an* -way criminal or illegal. (4) Whether the price for cement of, New Zealand manufacture was directly or indirectly determined, controlled or influenced by the panics Io tho agreement in such manner as to make the price unreasonably high. (5) Whether the said agreement has in any manner operated detrimentally to the public interest. (6) Whether the Board of Trade, being aware of such agreement, was lacking in any duty in taking no action with respect to such agreement. The date upon which the commission j is to sit will be decided by Mr Justice

Sim. i DISCUSSION IN HOUSE. The Hon. E. P. Lee, in reply to Mr T. M. Wilford, in the House, stated that the order of reference in connection with the cement inquiry was now in tho hands of Mr Justice Sim, and it was for. him to fix the date of the inquiry. 1 i Mr Wilford said there were several directions in which he thought tho order of reference should be amended. In the first place, tho period over which the inquiry was to extend started with January 1, .1920, when it. should have been 1918, for that was the period covered by Mr Masters’ comments, and on which he based his calculations. The order of reference also spoke of the retail price ox store Wellington, while I NFr Masters had spoken of the wholesale price at the works. Another clause in the order of reference asked tho judge to say whether tho agreement made between the cement companies constituted an offence against the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910, or any other Act, or was in any way criminal or illegal. Ho suggested that the last part of # this should be altered to read “criminal, illegal, immoral, or in restraint of trade.” He further suggested that the judge should be asked to inquire into tho Government’s knowledge of tho agreement entered into between the cement companies. The order of reference only mentioned the Board of Trade.

Mr Lee: That is the same thing. Mr Wilford contended it was not the same thing, and tho inquiry should go into the question of whether or not the Government had any knowledge of the agreement. He also asked that counsel be allowed to appear at tho inquiry. Mr Leo: That is for the judge to say. Mr Wilford: I know it is but the Government can assist. Mr Lee: I do not object. We will ask that counsel be allowed to appear. Mr Wilford said Mr Masters wished to get counsel from a distance, and he wanted to know if the Government would pay his costs. Mr Lee: That is another story. The Hon. W. Nosworthy: You must attend your own funeral. MR MASTERS’ VIEWS. Wellington, Oct. 14. Mr. Masters. M.P. for Stratford, who made the charges against the Board of Trade, the Government, and the cement trust or combine, was inter- ; viewed to-night by a “ Times ’ ’ reporter ’ regarding the order of reference for the . Commission of Inquiry. ' Mr Masters asserts that the order of reference is far too limited in scope, and that it appears to be made with a view to burk a full inquiry such .as the public require in their own interests. Referring to the sections of the order in detail, Mr Masters pointed out that the scope of the inquiry is .limited to the period between January 1, 1925, and March, 1921, whereas for the purpose of considering the companies’ procedure it was necessary to go back to January, 1918, because his charges referred to transactions on that date. He further pointed out that in clause (1) the inquiry was limited to the question of the maximum retail price in New Zealand, whilst his charges were specially directed against the wholesale prices. In no portion of his speech did ho refer to the retail prices in Wellington of £9 13s Gd per ton or any other retail prices, as stated in this section. In fact, in reply to the Minister, he stated distinctly that the basis of charges was the price charged at the works.

Another point raised by Mr Masters was that while he emphatically stated that there had been a restraint of trade, no mention in plain terms of this charge is found in the Ministerial order of reference. Instead, the Minister 1 , in clause 3, asks whether the transaction or agreement constituted an offence against the Commercial Trusts Act. 1910. while everyone knew full well that an offence was only possible under the provisions of that Act if the commodity concerned was specifically mentioned in the schedule of the Act, and cement was not so mentioned. In conclusion, Mr Masters said he made tho charges solely in the public interest. Only an inquiry of the fullest scope and the widest order of reference will satisfy him. If these are given then (ho says) he will undertake to prove every charge made.