Diversion of U.S. Ships from N.Z.

Manawatu Times, Volume 70, Issue 265, 9 November 1945, Page 6

Diversion of U.S. Ships from N.Z.

Not Due to Auckland Go-slow, Says Minister (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, NOV. 7. In the House of Representatives today Hon. B. Roberts, in a written reply to Mr. D. C. Kidd (Waitaki) said that from VJ Day, American Forces in New Zealand had been preparing to leave at the ealiest convenient date, and he was imaware of any foundation for the suggestion that the recent diversion of ships from New Zealand was the result of any internal difficulties in the Dominion. Mr. Kidd in his question had drawn : the Minister’s attention to a report that, owing to the go-slow tactics adopted by the Auckland waterside workers, 11 ships en route to New Zealand to load refrigerated cargo valued at between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 dollars, had been cancelled. Mr. Kidd added that this cancellation would mean a serious financial loss to the Dominion. Mr. Roberts in his written reply said: “Representatives of the American Military Supply Office in New Zealand, advise that all decisions regarding the routing of vessels for war purposes are made by the United States High Command at Pearl Harbour, not by officers in New Zealand. ” The Minister added that the cessation of American refrigerated shipping from New Zealand would present a serious problem to the Government on account of vegetables which had been grown specifically for American military needs (which were to have extended at least to December 31) not being uplifted. “The sudden cancellation will leave heavy quantities of green and root crops on our hands as they mature over the next three months. All other overseas channels of disposal, including Unrra, are being investigated. Large quantities of vegetables will be dehydrated, and full supplies of fresh vegetables will be made available to the public as far as transport makes it practicable. “Even with these measures there will be heavy surpluses, but in terms of growers’ contracts with the Internal Marketing Division, the division will compensate those growers whose contracts cannot be completed,” said the Minister. Mr. Kidd, discussing the answer given by Mr. Roberts, said the fact that the Americans were leaving the Dominion had nothing to do with the case; it did not alter the fact that ships which were coming to New Zealand had been diverted. Rt. Hon. P. Fraser: Where did you get that from? Mr. Kidd: It was in the press. Mr. Fraser: We had no information to that effect. Mr. Kidd: It was because you had the go-slow trouble on the Auckland waterfront. COMPENSATION FOR GROWERS Mr. Kidd added that the American attitude was that they could not afford to send their ships where they would experience delays. Why did not the Minister lay his cards on the table and say what the true position was? The time was long overdue when we should take a stand against this sort of thing. There was so much produce now that the Minister did not know what to do with it, and the taxpayers would have to meet charges for compensation to the growers. Mr. Kidd said that the vegetables wo should be converting into dollar exchange were now difficult to dispose of. It was a disgrace and should not be allowed to happen again. The Minister should stand up on the floor of the House and give the facts. What action would the Government take in the future? Mr. Roberts said it was time to accept Mr. Kidd’s challenge to give the facts when the latter had let his prejudice run away with the truth. It was true that the watersiders had instituted a go-slow policy, and it was true that certain representations were made to the men to get them to recognise that there was still an overriding necessity for foodstuffs grown in New Zealand to go up to Pacific areas to feed the troops, even if the war had finished. The point was, however, that decisions in regard to American ships were taken at Pearl Harbour. “As far as I understand, those ships never started for New Zealand from Pearl Harbour,” sale, the Minister. “The decision was one we must deal with in the best way possible. The Americans had taken the responsibility for this food, and although they might never receive it by ship, 't would have to be taken into account from the financial point of view. “I give the lie direct to the report that any ships were diverted back; they were not. Two British ships were held up, but the decision on the American ships was made by authorities outside New Zealand. I deny that they were diverted back after starting for New Zealand.” Mr. G. H. Mackley (Masterton) said that the go-slow policy was very important to New Zealand’s internal as well as her external trade. Owing to delays to four or five coastal ships, some 18,000 tons of cargo was awaiting shipment to the South Island, and several thousands tons of cargo in southern ports was awaiting shipment north, it was adversely affecting the country's industry and increasing the costs of production. NO JUSTIFICATION FOR HOLD-UP Mr. Fraser said the member for Masterton had raised a very important matter. The transport services of the country could not be held up without causing disastrous delay. Those responsible for the hold-ups in Auckland had no justification for causing injury to the economic life of the community, or for forcing the hand of the Waterfront Commission. If that policy was to be practised, and every section of the community was going to threaten industrial dislocation to get its own objective realised, it would be impossible to maintain the social life and living standard of the country. Mr. W. Sullivan (Bay of Plenty) said that the action was more than a threat. Mr. Fraser: I know it was. It was fulfilment of a threat, hut it failed. The men went back to work. He said that the question raised was a fair one, and the honourable member had received an honest answer, but instead of accepting that, he had preferred to accept a newspaper report against the intimate personal knowledge of the Minister. Did the honourable member think that newspaper reports were infallible? Was it not possible that they might be wrong? Although the honourable member had preferred to accept a perverted viewpoint, there was no indication that any ship had been diverted. There obviously would be a loss, just the same as there had been other war losses, but he felt sure that the United Stat^

Authorities would certainly recommend that an allowance be made accordingly. The matter was one for negotiation, along with other Lend-Lease issues. He agreed with the member for Masterton that we could not afford such calamities as hold-ups in industry and commerce. Mr. Mackley: Can you do anything to relieve the congestion? Mr. Fraser replied that that depended on what shipping was available. There was no justification for any trade union, employers or farmers to threaten to stop work, and injure the rest of the community juss because their sectional demands were not granted. It was a difficult matter to deal with and penalised the people, but reason must be seen, and there must be cooperation'if the country was to maintain ita standard of living. Mr. A. S. Sutherland (Hauraki) considered that the Minister of Agriculture had been anything hut frank in his reply. There was not the slightest doubt that the American ships got their orders to divert because of the go-slow policy on the Auckland waterfront. The House rose at 5.30 for the tea adjournment.