TYRE MANUFACTURE

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVIII, Issue 23258, 20 July 1945, Page 6

TYRE MANUFACTURE

Discussion In House Method Of Granting Licences (F.O.P.RJ WELLINGTON. July 19. The subject of tyre manufacturing in New Zealand was well ventilated in the House to-day during the discussion of Ministerial replies to questions, notice of which had been given previously. Reference was freely made Io the recent inquiry by the Bureau of Industry and the Minister of Industries and Commerce, also the lion. IV. Nash, explained the procedure followed. Opposition members concentrated their attack on the possibility of a monopoly being created. The reply by the Hon. D. G. Sullivan gave rise to a discussion as to whether a full public inquiry would be held into ail aspects of the proposed undertaking. Mr Sullivan replied that a full inquiry had been held by the Bureau of Industry and all interested parties were heard. Representations for licences to import tyres would be considered on their merits in the light of the stock position, price factor and manufacturing potentialities of the Dominion. It was not possible at present to give any guarantee regarding the future position. Alleged Secret Inquiry Mr W. A. Sheat (National, Patea) said if it transpired that a monopoly would be set up for concerns with the greatest political pull then the public would be exploited. He said he wished to protest against a secret inquiry. If one licence was granted there would be no competition. When Mr Sheat added that he had heard a member bellowing into a telephone that there would be two licences there were frequent protests from Government members with cries of “keyhole.” The Speaker (the Hon. F. W. Schramm) asked Mr Sheat to resume his seat, and pointed out that the practice was for members to ignore information they heard in the lobbies. Mr Sheat said he had heard the information in a passage in Parliament Buildings. He suggested that it -would be possible, if a licence was granted, for the Government to allow the interest of the great mass of the people to be safeguarded by allowing the importation of tyres to proceed as jin the past. i Mr W. T. Anderton Government, Eden) quoted a number of countries with smaller car registration figures than New Zealand, and said that’if they were able to manufacture types it would be economically satisfactepy for New Zealand to do so. j Mr M. H. Oram (Government, Maijawatau) said that the vigorous protlst of the member for Patea was dot against tyre manufacturing in New Zealand but against a monopoly and the use of import selection to create a monopoly. Reasonable opportunities should be given to British industry. Mr W. J. Polson (National, Stratford ): In terms of the bond. The Rev. Clyde Carr (Government. Timarui condemned the member for Patea for making public information which, he suggested, had been obtained illicitly.

Government members: Listening at keyholes and snooping. Mr Polson strongly protested against these statements and asked the direction of the Speaker as to whether they were in order. Mr Speaker replied that the unwritten law of Parliament was that things heard in the lobby could not be acted on in the House. Possibly the member for Patea was unaware of that rule. He though the discussion on that point had gone far enough. Mr Carr declared that there was a radical difference between the Government's policy and that of the Opposition. which wanted New Zealand to be a glorified cowyard and its children turned out of schools to grow turnips instead of utilising the technical facilities of modern science. The Hon. D. G. Sulliv. denied that the inquire into tyre licences had been secret. It was..he said, fully advertised and not only were the applicants heard but the public, the Bureau of Importers, the farming community and representatives of manufacturers. There were difficulties in the way of newspaper publicity, but it could not be called a secret inauiry. Mr Sheat: Can the ' representatives of the farmers report to farmers? Is it not confidential? The Minister replied that he did not know, but he knew they were invited to attend and give evidence. Room for Two Concerns

New Zealand. Mr Sullivan continued, could support not only one tyre manufacturing industry but at least two competing concerns. While he was not interfering with the Bureau he assumed that at least two licences would be issued, and it was possible that there might be room for a third. All tyre manufacturing concerns which exported to New Zealand had applied for licences to manufacture In the Dominion with two exceptions, and it might be possible to combine their interests and provide for them while at the same time giving scope to local industry. There was a firm in Auckland and another in Christchurch which had done an amazingly • good job in the production of rubber goods. Admirable as had been the work of our primarv producers during the war our manufacturers —the men. women and boys of our country—had shown a mental capacity and skill unsurpassed bv anv country in the world. The Opposition talked as if they were an inferior race (Opposition dissent>. One overseas tyre manufacturing firm had informed him that it could produce in New Zealand at a lesser price than the overseas produce. Question of Monopoly

The Minister: I do not want to. abuse a confidence, but it is one of the best known firms in the world. Mr Polson said the Minister had made a ridiculous statement in respect to the policy of the Opposition. The fact was that the Opposition was just as interested in the manufacturing industries as was the Government. Opposition members were New Zealanders -not imported politicians. The Opposition was anxious to see the development of the country’- What was being discussed wr > the question of the creation of a monopoly, nothing else. Was a monopoly to be given to any particular firm in -view of the pledge given bv the Government to the United Kingdom Government to the effect that New Zealand would not establish monopolies to the disadvantage of Britain. New Zealand manufacturers were entitled to .some protection and nothing' had been said by the Opposition was opposed to that. If tvres could be manufactured in New Zealand cheaper than those brought into the country what was the reason for the Star Chamber method of granting licences and stating that there was a public inquiry. It was known who the two companies were that would be the licensees. Mr Sullivan: I do not know. The Minister for Finance (the Hon W. Nash) said the member for Stratford had drawn across the track the usual red herring. The usual step had been taken through the Bureau of Industry. There had been anplications from Britain, the United States and New Zealand from concerns desiring to r'.anufaeture tyres in New Zealand Mr Oram: Has It been discussed with the manufacturers of Britain? The Minister said Britain had been represented by one of its chief organisations. Britain had been consulted in respect of everything that, had happened If an overseas company came to New Zealand it would bring in £750.000 in capital But for the war the tyre niani’facturing industry would have been in New Zeal" - '-! four or five vears neo New Zealand had to produce to the limit to keen un 'he living Standard of the people and the whole of the resources of (he .'oir.itry bad to be utilised