Sale Of Wainui And Waitaki

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32251, 20 March 1970, Page 14

Sale Of Wainui And Waitaki

The Union Steam Ship Company’s decision to sell the Wainui and the Waitaki is understandable. The dispute which kept the Wainui tied-up at the Auckland waterfront for 20 weeks must have been the final—perhaps the principal—factor in the company’s decision. That dispute must have cost the company many thousands of dollars; after the regular losses sustained by the company on its Far Eastern run, the losses attributable to the Wainui dispute must have been the proverbial last straw. The company’s decision will save the Government the $200,000 a year formerly'paid to the company to subsidise its Far Eastern service, but the Minister of Overseas Trade (Mr Marshall) is, rightly, less concerned to save expenditure on this service than to encourage New Zealand exporters to sell their wares in the Far East. There are at least two other shipping lines, overseas-owned, interested in trading between New Zealand and the Far East; but they cannot be expected to promote the service as actively as would a New Zealand-based, Government-subsidised company. Exporters must now expect a reduced frequency of shipping between New Zealand and the Far East, at least until the other companies satisfy themselves that the service has reasonable prospects of becoming profitable. During the dispute many ships’ engineers left New Zealand for other jobs in Australian-based companies. Their loss may take years to make good, particularly if the vexed question of the engineer’s “ right ” to select his engine-room staff is not settled to their liking. The Seamen’s Union has not yet established the principle of employment of its members in strict rotation. Neither of the original parties to the Wainui dispute, therefore, has gained anything. Perhaps, now that the Wainui has finally left Auckland, a settlement can be negotiated. To avoid the prospect of another dispute arising from the same cause, a compromise formula must be found, giving the seamen some assurance of regular employment but allowing a ship’s officers a limited choice of crew members.

It is ironic that the president of the Seamen’s Union (Mr W. Martin) should describe the withdrawal of the company from the Far Eastern service as a “ national disgrace ”, Most observers would more readily apply that term to the enforced idleness for 20 weeks of a vessel with a valuable export cargo; and Mr Martin’s union must take its share of the blame for that national disgrace. The hopes of many members of Mr Martin’s union for the establishment of a national shipping line have not been advanced by the Wainui dispute; indeed, the union’s actions must have cost it much of the support it had won for this scheme in official circles.