The Press MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1971. Union Steam Ship Company

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32525, 8 February 1971, Page 12

The Press MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1971. Union Steam Ship Company

National pride has been aroused by the suggestion that New Zealand ntight regain control of its most important shipping line, the Union Steam Ship Company. But more than national pride ought to be taken into account in any calculation of the advantages of an attempt by New Zealanders, perhaps with Government help, to outbid the offer made to the P and 0 Company for control of its subsidiary by an Australian company, Thomas Nationwide Transport, Ltd. The Tasman Sea is not a New Zealand lake, trans-Tasman trade is a two-way affair, and an Australian company, especially one with substantial interests in New Zealand, has as much incentive as New Zealanders to provide efficient services.

The P and 0 announcement on Friday that the Union Company would not remain on the market to be “ hawked around ” if the T.N.T. bid is not approved by the Government, is understandable. The prospect of an alternative bid from a New Zealand consortium, R.A.O. Holdings, Ltd, has been held out since September, 1970, without any firm proposals. The New Zealand Government would be wise to delay the change of ownership until it is satisfied New Zealand’s interests are protected; it would be unwise to delay the sale merely to give the consortium extra time to organise an alternative bid. If the T.N.T. bid succeeds it is likely that the new owners of the Union Company will provide for substantial New Zealand-domiciled ownership: the company’s operations would be split into three sections so that the Australian coastal trade is under Australian control, New Zealand and Pacific Islands trade under New Zealand control, and trans-Tasman trade shared. At the very least, such a division might force this country into a realistic appraisal of the reasons for the delays, inefficiencies, and high costs of coastal shipping services in New Zealand. Not all of the blame rests with the overseas owners of the Union Company; part of the cause will be found in some of the trade unions which have been to the fore in demanding that New Zealand should operate its own shipping line. It remains to be proved that any significant savings in overseas exchange would be achieved by a wholly New Zealand-owned shipping line. There are attractions, however, in having New Zealand’s shipping services closely associated with the operations of a large and efficient transport concern with interests in North America as well as the South Pacific. Fast and reliable movement of exports is more important to New Zealand than the formal ownership of the ships which carry them. Any permanent expansion of New Zealand’s markets will require a more efficient service, especially to Asian and Pacific Islands ports, than has been available. Here there may be room for the Government to enter into agreements with the Union Company, regardless of its ownership, to encourage the establishment of services which would expand New Zealand’s export markets, perhaps including the offer of subsidies for a specified time on particular routes. Not enough is yet known about the terms of the proposed change of ownership, or about the manner in which T.N.T., Ltd, would organise the Union Company. The companies involved would be wise to announce as many details as possible to forestall uninformed criticism in this country. The widest possible appraisal of New Zealand’s shipping needs and interests should be made before the Government approves any change of ownership; but the debate ought to be concerned with the efficiency, reliability, and profitability for New Zealand of the alternatives, rather than centred on the nebulous, if emotionally attractive, issue of “New Zealand ownership”.