MISSING FOOD PARCELS

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25609, 25 September 1948, Page 8

MISSING FOOD PARCELS

STATEMENT BY MR J. K. MCALPINE

“SIMPLE QUESTION NOT ANSWERED ”

“About a fortnight ago, I asked a question in the House of Representatives relating to some lost food parcels sent by a constituent of mine to her son in care of New Zealand House, 415 Strand, London, England,” said Mr J. K. McAlpine, M.P., in a statement to “The Press” last evening on the reply made by the High Commissioner to the United Kingdom (Mr W. J. Jordan).

“In a footnote to the question, and by way of explanation, I drew attention to the fact that everything possible had' been done at this end to locate the missing parcels before I asked the question in the House. In this footnote I stated that Mr Jordan’s reply was evasive. I might have used ‘unsatisfactory,’ but ‘evasive’ seemed the right word, and was used in no sinister sense,’’ said Mr McAlpine. “Mr Jordan quotes his reply, and concludes with, ‘I do not call that evasive.’

“The question Mr Jordan was asked was whether he would have suitable inquiries made. He was not then (two years ago) nor now, ever accused of anything improper, nor were any of his staff so accused. Here is Mrs Hill’s question: ‘As it seems unusual that parcels should consistently go astray in this manner, I have taken the liberty of writing to you personally in the hope that you may be able to have suitable inquiries made in an endeavour to find out what has become of them. Any news that you are able to obtain will be gratefully appreciated.’ That clearly ask? only for inquiries to be made. * Mr Jordan’s Reply “Mr Jordan’s reply was: ‘We do hear occasionally about parcels which have been posted in New Zealand but have not been delivered here. On the other hand, we hear of other persons who have had parcels sent to them regularly almost since the outbreak of war, and all have been received. Of course, if parcels do not arrive there is very little we can do about it, as unless they are registered there is no record of them. Parcels are kept in this office until they are called for, or we readdress them if we receive instructions to that effect. I believe that all parcels which have been sent to me personally have arrived. We are most grateful to the friends who send them, in fact the friends are so kind we are able to pass on some things to other people. If parcels are lost we have no idea, of course, where they are* lost. This may happen before they leave New Zealand, although some people sometimes blame the persons who should hand them out at this end. I have every confidence that the staff of this office is thoroughly reliable in every respect.’ “We have never doubted any of these things, but they do not answer the simple question which he was asked,’’ said Mr McAlpine. “I did not seek publicity for the word ‘evasive.’ Mr Fraser did that when he asked leave of the House to answer the question immediately. He used that time to castigate me for daring to suggest evasiveness when he had seen'neither the original letter nor the reply. Furthermore, he knew I had no right to reply to him then. When I did have the right of reply, a week later, for only five nffnutes, the footnote had been removed from the order paper, and I was not allowed to discuss it, although I tried, and was ruled out of order. In the words of Mr Jordan, is thgt fair and kind?” said Mr McAlpine. “Mr Jordan says I should have written to him instead of asking the question in the House. As I see it, my duty is to see that the interest of my constituents are served to the best of my ability. My judgment has proved right in the method I adopted, as two years elapsed, and nothing was done in answer to letters. But since I gave publicity, things have moved apace. It would .be interesting to know how much public money has been spent on cables between the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) and Mr Jordan in two weeks, as compared with the amount spent in locating the missing parcels in the last two years.”

CONCERN EXPRESSED BY MR JORDAN

USE OF WORD “EVASIVE” (Special Correspondent N.Z.P.A.) LONDON, September 23. “I am concerned at the accusation made in Parliament by Mr J. K. McAlpine (Opposition, Selwyn) that I sent an evasive reply to a lady in Christchurch concerning parcels sent to her son,” said the High Commissioner for New Zealand (Mr W. J. Jordan) when his attention was drawn to a report of a question asked in the House of Representatives. “These parcels were sent two years ago, in July and October, 1946, to her son, whom I know well and who visits our home. It was impossible to trace them.” Mr Jordan then referred to his reply to Mrs Hill [quoted by Mr McAlpine in his statement printed this morning] and said he did not consider it evasive. Mr Jordan emphasised that no parcels addressed to private persons were distributed by New Zealand House. They remained there until they were collected or forwarding addresses were given, and if they were not collected after a long period and there was no alternative address to which they could be sent, the sender in New Zea-

land was eventually informed and asked what should be done with them. In some cases, parcels were sent to the High Commissioner as presents for the needy, and these, of course, were faithfully distributed at his discretion. “I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his remarks in the House of Representatives,” * Mr Jordan added, “and I can assure him and the people of New Zealand that I and my staff desire to give them satisfaction. It would have been much fairer and kinder, I feel, if Mr McAlpine had written to me personally rather than try to make political capital in the House. We have no politics at New Zealand House.”