PRICE OF CEMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 December 1921, Page 5

PRICE OF CEMENT.

FINDING OF COMMISSION. CHARGES NOT SUSTAINED. NO OFFENCE REVEALED. BRISK DEBATE IN HOUSE. The Cement Commission’s report exonerates the Board of Trade, finding that in sanctioning the increase in December, 1920, of £1 16s per ton ex store they were not guilty of impropriety or hn error of judgment, as the increase was quite justified in the then state of the market. The action of the board benefited the public. As to the agreement, the commission finds it does not constitute an offence, nor is it in any way criminal or illegal. It was in restraint of trade, but that restraint is reasonable and not invalid. The agreement h(is not operated against the interests of the public in general. The Golden Bay works would probably have been closed whether the agreement was made or not. The price of cement had not been unreasonably high at any time during the period in question. There was no action the Board of Trade could properly have taken about the agreement. With respect to costs, the commission is not satisfied that an order should be made against Mr. R. Masters, M.P. for Stratford, who brought the charges. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyrrgfr.t. Wellington, Last Night. The report of Judge Sim, Commissioner appointed to enquire into cement matters, was presented to Parliament to-day. The questions before the Commissioner were: (1) Whether the Board of Trade in December, 1920, in sanctioning the maximum retail price of cement of New Zealand manufacture of £9 13s 6d ex store, Wellington, was guilty of any impropriety or of a grievous error of judgment. (2) Whether the companies manufacturing 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 demdnd over the supply to extort unreasonably high prices from the public. (3) Whether the agreement dated May 5, 1921, set out in the Schedule constituted an offence against the Commercial Trusts Act, or was in any way criminal or illegal. (4) Whether the price for cement of New Zealand manufacture was directly or indirectly determined, controlled or influenced by the parties to the agreement in such a 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 an agreement, was lacking in any duty in taking no action with respect to such agreement.

THE INCREASE JUSTIFIED. With respect to the first two the Commissioner finds as follows: (1) The Board of Trade, in sanctioning in December, 1920, an increase of £1 16$ per ton, ex store, Wellington, was not guilty of any impropriety or error of judgment. (2) The increase was quite justified in the then state of the cement market. (3) The importation of cement into New Zealand was not in any wav brought about by that increase, but was rendered necessary by the shortage of cement in the Dominion. The Board of Trade did not assist or permit the cement companies, or any of them, to fleece the public. On the contrary, the board benefited the public at the expense of the shareholders in the companies by keeping the price of cement in New Zealand below its price in the world’s market, and by controlling the distribution of cement. The companies did not obtain unreasonably high prices from the public at any time, and if they had desired to take any unfair advantage of the acute shortage of cement the action of the board made it impossible for them to do so. With respect to the other questions the finding of the Commission is: (1) The agreement does not constitute an offence under the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910, or under any other Act, (2) It is not in any way criminal or illegal. (3) It is in restraint of trade, but restraint is reasonable, having regard to the interests of the contracting parties, and to the interests of the public, and is therefore not invalid. (4) It was not made to prevent the people from getting cement, or to stifle competition, or to increase the price of cement, and was not intended by the parties to operate to the detriment of the public in any way. THE PUBLIC INTEREST. (5) It has not operated detrimentally to the interests of the public in general. The closing of the Golden Bay works has inflicted some hardship in individual cases, but the works probably would have been closed whether the agreement had been made or not.

(6) The stipulation in clause 6 of the agreement that the Golden Bay Company should take no steps while the agreement was in fdree towards reorganising its capital, or improving or reconstructing its works or machinery, was in the circumstances reasonable and proper provision. (7) The stipulation in clause 9 of the agreement that Wilson’s Company should take over the Golden Bay Company’s stock of bags was inserted in the interests of the Golden Bay Company, and without any sinister intention, and the sale of these bags will not prevent or delay the resumption of business by the Gohlen Bay Company when the agreement expires. (8) The price of cement has not been unreasonably high at any time during the period in question, having regard to the price of cement in the world’s markets.

(9) There was no action which the Board of Trade could properly have taken with the agreement, and the board was not lacking in its duty in the matter. On the question of costs the Commissioner says it was suggested that an order should be made under section 2 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1908, directing Mr. Masters to pay the costs of the inquiry. “I am not satisfied, however, that the case is one in which the jurisdiction conferred by that section should be exercised in the way suggested,” says the Commissioner.