The Press THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1957. Sale of Packing Corporation

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28314, 27 June 1957, Page 12

The Press THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1957. Sale of Packing Corporation

The reason why the Labour Party chose the New Zealand Packing Corporation transactions as the basis of its noconfidence amendment in the House of Representatives is obscure. Possibly it was no more than inability to find a really weak point in the Government’s administration; possibly it was doctrinaire resentment of a deal that could be satisfactory both to the State and to hundreds of private shareholders. About all the Opposition will achieve is a present to shareholders in the' shape of higher prices for the shares on the open market. Through the cloud of figures blown up by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nash), the facts, as set out by the Deputy-Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake), are clear enough. They fall into tout periods. The first was the operation of the Auckland store and Pukekohe and Motueka vegetable processing factories during the war, when they were of real national value. The second was the period of post-war indecision, deterioration of assets, and losses under the Labour Government. The third was the present Government’s attempt to dispose of this unwanted legacy without being able to attract competitive bids. The fourth started with the establishment of a joint caretaker corporation to arrange for the ultimate transfer of the business to a public company, which has been completed. Probably matters would have taken a different course if, for instance, the Labour Government had realised the possibilities of the business. Again, if private investors in 1953 had understood their

opportunity, the Government might have made a good sale at that time without the in-

volved process of establishing the caretaker corporation. But in the end everything has turned out well. A useful industry has been established, and the taxpayer has made a return on his money. The public may apply some simple tests to the Opposition allegations of “ political cor- “ ruption ” and “ public scan“dal”. One is to consider the position of Mr J. R. Rutland, whose interest in the company was attacked, at least by implication. This is the same Mr Butland that the Labour Party called in on liberal terms to help it make something of the factories after the war. The present Government, in continuing to use Mr Rutland’s “ know-how ”, has done no more than pay Mr Nash a compliment in his judgment of men. A second test is to consider the Government’s representation in the caretaker corporation. The State could not have found a public servant more competent to protect its interests, or one of higher reputation, than Mr E. J. Fawcett, whose appointment as Director-General of Agriculture dates from the Labour Government. Is it really suggested that Mr Fawcett was a party to some impropriety? Again, the allegation that the Government was doing something for a few friends appears a little absurd when 1698 persons hold shares in the public company, with an average holding of £ 176 and a maximum of £ 1000. The shareholders include 34 growers and 18 members of the staff, who are probably more interested in the successful operation of the undertaking than in their dividends. Finally, the State has made a profit of £ 219,000. That is one figure anyone can understand.