NO HARM

Northern Advocate, 1 December 1921, Page 5

NO HARM

IN CEMENT AGREEMENT.

COMMISSION'S REPORT

TABLED IN THE HOUSE

(Special to "Northern Advocate.") WELLINGTON, This Day.

The report of the Cement Commission occupied the House yesterday afternoon. The Minister of Industries and Commerce read the report to the House and explained that it did not uphold any of the charges made against the cement companies and the Board of Trade. The Commission held that the agreement under which two companies paid a third company to keep its works closed was not illegal uor criminal. It did not increase the price of Cement and did not prejudice public interests. The price of c.ement had not been unreasonably high' during the period of the agreement, and the Board of Trade had not failed of its duty in any respect. The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. T. M. Wilford, retorted that the Minister and the Government had had everything their own way. They had prepared the order of reference without consulting Mr Masters, who made the original charges. They ' had placed in the order of reference matter that was not in the charges, and so had obtained a Teport that was built on sand. Why had the Minister thought it necessary to undertake the defence of the cement companies. The Judge had found it impossible to find for Mr Masters under the order of reference, but his refiftal to order the payment of costs by the member showed what was at the back of his mind.

Mr R. Masters (Stratford) said that he had no doubt that the Government was pleased with the Teport. He was equally sure that the cement companies were pleased with the report, since now they had the strength of the Government as far as monopolies were concerned. But the Minister and the com 4 panics would never make the public believe that it was a right and moral thing for the cement companies to combine and pay one company £1500 a year to close down its works. The people knew that they had to pay the money. Why had the Minister directly the matter was mentioned taken up the position of counsel defending the companies? Why was he so solicitious for the interests of the cement companies? Had he been speaking on behalf of members of the Government side of the House, including Ministers, who held 125,000 £1 shares out of 600,000 shares of the Wilson Cement Company, for members and their relatives held 125,000 shares. Mt Massey: Who are they? Mr Masters replied that the members who held the shares were Sir Heaton Rhodes (£32,157), Sir William Herries (£1509) ,Mr H. M. Camp"bell (£847), and Mr K. S. Williams and members of his family (£90,000). The Minister was president of the Board of Trade, but his concern had been for the cement companies, of which his political friends were such large shareholders.

The Hon. E. P. Lee: I had no knowledge of their shares.

Mr Masters proceeded to disctlss in detail the evidence placed before the Commission "and to claim that his charges had been upheld.

The Hon. C. J. Parr, replying on behalf of the Government, did not throw much new light on the matter, and when the report was laid on the table the House turned to other business.