TYRE MANUFACTURE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 29 November 1945, Page 4

TYRE MANUFACTURE

GRANTING OF LICENSES HEARING OF APPEALS CONCLUDED Wellington, Nov. 28. Further argument against the granting of licenses to manufacture tyres and tubes in New Zealand was heard before the Industrial Efficiency Act Appeal Authority, the Hon. Sir Francis Frazer, in Wellington yesterday. The companies which objected to the granting of licenses were L. Michelin and Co., Ltd., A. S. Paterson and Co.. Ltd., and Avon India Rubber Co.. Ltd. Counsel for the three companies to which licenses had been granted: Reid (N.Z.) Rubber Mills, Ltd., and E. W. Pidgeon and Co., Ltd., in association with the B. F. Goodrich Company and the Dunlop Rubber Co. N.Z.) Ltd., opened their case in replyWhen Mr Stanton, for Dunlop Rubber Co. (N.Z.) Ltd.* was answering opposing counsel's remarks about Britain’s export trade, his Honour said: “Doesn’t the whole thing boil down to whether the industry in New Zealand is economic?” He added that he did net think New Zealand would be expected to refrain from developing economic secondary industries. The hearing pf appeals concluded about noon to-day. Arising out of submissions by counsel, his Honour, Sir Francis Frazer, said that the Supreme Court, in considering appeals, was concerned with law and facts. In appeals under the Industrial Efficiency Act, however, he was concerned with the facts, the law and economics. Insofar as the bureau had reached findings on pure facts, he thought he should accept them unless evidence were brought to cause him to believe that they were wrong. He considered, however, that he had a free hand in matters of law and equally, or even more so, in matters of economics. He had been wondering what was meant by “the economic welfare of New Zealand.” There was a suggestion that the country should have what was called .1 balanced economy, but he was not, at the moment, expressing any opinion, as to whether a tyre industry was part of that balanced economy. Commenting on one aspect of Mr Hoggard's (for Michelin and Co. Ltd) remarks, his Honour said that it was not just the cost of manufacture in New Zealand compared with the cost of manufacture in Britain that had to be considered. It was a question of the cost of manufacture in New Zealand compared with the cost of manufacture in Britain, plus freight, insurance and other charges. Exchange also had to be considered.

Estimating that the cost of production in New Zealand would be 40 to 50 per eont. higher than in Britain, Mr Hoggard submitted that that was confirmed by the applicant's request for protection. Firestone, one of the licensees, said they wanted a Uyiff of 9.8 d per lb, and that, on the basis of pre-war prices, was equivalent to 40 per cent, ad valorem. In addition, they would have the protection of freights, insurance and landing charges which before the war amounted to 10 per cent, on cost. If the industry jn New Zealand could compete with imported products, why had it not done it in Australia? he asked. There the industry had been built up under a tariff protection of 3s 9d per lb, which was now, however, down to 10d or 9d per lb.