LEND-LEASE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25431, 12 January 1944, Page 2

LEND-LEASE

The Minister of Finance has been at pains to arrange for the circulation from his office of a copy, with marginal notes, of a speech which he delivered in Parliament last session respecting the lend-lease agreement with the United States. It was a very long and unquestionably important speech, in the course of which Mr Nash exhaustively examined and explained the provisions of the agreement as they affect the Allied countries that are parties to it, and it was listened to with close attention and warm appreciation. _ln the course of the discussion, and immediately prior to Mr Nash’s reply to it, a question was put by Mr Dickie, then member for Patea, relative to the employment of New Zealand residents by the military authorities in the Dominion. “Will the wages of those men,” Mr Dickie asked, “ be part of our contribution to lendlease? Or are they to be paid by the United States Government? ” So far as anything can at the present time be said to be certain with reference to the final settlements under the agreement, Mr Nash’s reply left no doubt in the matter. “There are a number of New Zealanders,” he said, “ employed by the United States authorities, particularly in connection with the loading and unloading of ships, and their wages are paid by the United States, but we reimburse that country under the lend-lease principle. That means that the charge for the services of our citizens is borne by us. This is an important declaration of which the chief interest in New Zealand lies in the fact that it is no longer a subject for mild amusement, but one for deep concern on the part of the New Zealand taxpayer, that wages have been, and are being, paid by the United States authorities to men employed by them that are, according to Dominion standards, out of all proportion to the value of the services rendered by the recipients. With these American authorities, money apparently counts for so little that they are prepared to offer the most extravagant sums for the labour which they have engaged. But since, according to Mr Nash, the liability for the payment of these wages falls on the Government of New Zealand, it might have been expected that the Government would have, at least, some voice in the decision of the rates at which the wages were fixed. If it has not, it is a peculiarly slipshod arrangement into which it has entered with the United States authorities. Perhaps employers in New Zealand would be less exercised in mind about the wages payable to those whom they employ if they had reason to believe that it was not by themselves that the bill would have to be met.