NO CHANCE TO OBJECT

Hokitika Guardian, 29 August 1929, Page 2

NO CHANCE TO OBJECT

CABLE MERGER.

“ A HUGE MISTAKE J

WELLINGTON, August 27. The legislation involving New Zealand’s ratification of. the merger of wireless interests and: the Pacific Cable was: introduced, byij,Governor-General’s message in the House to-day, with the remarkable announcement by the Prime Minister, Sir; Joseph Ward, that he .-was against the proposal in this Government as he subsequently explained; all.other partners in. the Pacific cablet [undertaki ng had agreed to!,the arrangement, and it was too late:to make any effective

protest: “ What’’will-be the position if Parliament refuses to sanction this merger?” asked Mr H. E. Holland, leader of the Labour Party-. :: He went on to remark % that, as 'far - as he could remember the undertaking given by the late Government was , never . referred to Parliament and was made without referenced to its wishes. Apparently New Zealand had been committed without its Parliament having any opportunity of saying whether it would sanction the proposal on:not'. : ni. ’• ' The Prime Minister stated that the merger, was agreed to, by Great Britain, the Commonwealth of- Australia, 1 and-Canada, and the Bill was for the " purpose of ratifying ft. on behalf of New Zealand. . I am not in favour; df itj” he continued, “but when it -was: reported to the House ft wfts too late foy. anything to be done by-way. of protest of any practical nature.” j

Mr Holland : I think the Right Hon. gentleman spoke against it. .. Sir Joseph Ward: Yes, but the British Government conducted the negotiations, and, with other Governments, agreed to it, and we can do nothing., Mr Coates,.' leader of the Opposition, stated that the negotiations were conducted by all the partners”in, the Pa-r cific cable, and it was purely’ aS'-'a/ result of those and mendations that New Zealand fell into line the other dominions and ; thp Mother. Country.. / • ' DOMINANT POSITION LOST. ; “It is no use. looking backward at the transaction,** commented Sir! Joseph Ward, who declared that as the British’ Government. exercised majority „cpn-: trol and the control over the beam tireless system, it should have retained its hold on the beam .system, and that would have! compelled the Marconi interests to ioin iii. It was a great mistake to .have ‘concluded the merger, which’ disposed, pf the first State-owned British cable, without Parliament having an opportunity, of considering, whether it would agree or not. It was true that the former Prime Minister reported the transaction after the last Imperial Conference, bpt in the past resolutions of the Im-

. Derial Conference had been subject ito ' ! the ratification of Parliament in New Zealand. “I think,” said Sir Joseph, 11 that this country-will never pet a chance like it again, of being able to restore its position of being part owner of a cable connecting Australia, Canada/and the Motherland, but it is too late for us’to do anything now.” Mr P., Ffaser remarked that all the House coUld do was to give formal assent, -to'last Parliament it would have been a (foregone conclusion that the agreement would have been endorsed, though many members who doubted 'the wisdom of the transaction would have opposed -it. He was exceedingly’* over the Prime Minister’s' Remarks. It was unfortunate that the -Baldwin Government was in power At the time the merger was because a Labour ' Government would hot have agreed, nor would the New Zealand Government have accepted it. Mr Coates remarked that, while the British Government controlled the beam system, was only within the Empire, and there was danger of serious competition from a combination of beam and cable systems. The owners of the Pacific cable had to decide whether they would carry on at great future loss or conserve-the asset they owned. Business on cables was seriously declining when the agreement was signed. Whether the right thing was done Or not, ample reasons for. it would be found in the record of experts’ opinions. No resolution dealing with the merger was submitted to the lniperial Conference, but a good deal was said in regard to the Pacific cable. Sir Joseph Ward declared that he dissented from the view of the Opposition leader, because he felt that, with the British Government in a dominant position, controlling the beam system and also senior partner in the Pacific •cable, it .could have controlled the whole situation, and no other system in the world could have competed against them. The British Government made a huge mistake in giving up its superior interest, and he was sure that it was not a case of the Pacific cable losing money, but of the cable companies losing. The* enormous rise in cable shares during and after the merger negotiations was phenomenal, and huge sums were made out of it. He regretted the position, but it could not be restored. ■ . ' Mr Holland, in a strong final word of criticism, described the cable combination as international in its associations and headed by “the sinister figure of Lord Birkenhead.” The worst feature was that the agreement was put tb”ough without the consent of the peoples concerned. Had it been submitted to them, they would not have agreed. The Prim® Minister: Hear, hear.