THE WEEK IN THE HOUSE Local M.P.s speak on prices

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32561, 22 March 1971, Page 2

THE WEEK IN THE HOUSE Local M.P.s speak on prices

(By

C. R. MENTIPLAY,

our Parliamentary reporter)

The Address-in-Reply debate, which ended last week, offered local members greater opportunities than usual to desert the traditional home - electorate approach and devote much of their speech-time to main party issues. The main feature of the “emergency” sitting has been the introduction, study, and passing of the Stabilisation of Remuneration Bill. The local issue, however, seems to have been one of the casualties of this early sitting. Perhaps this is be-

cause such issues as. rising prices and inadequate housing, though general, have their sharp local applications. Welcoming the decision to set up an inquiry into flour and bread prices, Mr P. Blanchfield (Lab., westland) said he hoped it would meet a better fate than that of the beer-price inquiry. He suggested that the wheat grower and the flour miller could not lose; they had guaranteed prices and guaranted sales. "But the baker has to take the brand of flour he is allocated. Whacko for monopoly!" In February, 1967, Mr Blanchfield said, the baker of bread obtained his flour at $20.54 a ton. Pastrycooks paid $30.36 a ton, and grocers supplied housewives for $34.50 a ton.

"The subsidy was taken off and up went the price to the baker to $82.50. The grocer and the pastrycook were grouped together and were paying $92 a ton. In 1969 the prices went up again. "Then we come to April, 1970. The price of flour soared. To the bread-baker it was $105.40—a five times increase in the price of flour to the bread-baker in three years, and similarly to the pastrycook and grocer. Today the bread-baker gets his flour at $llO a ton; mark that it was $2O a ton in 1967.

"Pm glad they’re having an inquiry—but I don’t know how they’ll unravel that one." Housing problem An appeal to the Minister of Finance to ease restrictions so that more young couples could buy houses or rent State houses was made by Mr B. G. Barclay (Lab., Christchurch Central). “Young people in my electorate are getting a very raw deal from this Government,” he said. Mr Barclay charged that insufficient State houses were available in his electorate because of the low income level required. “Before a young couple can qualify for a State rental house the husband has to be earning less than $42 a week. It is virtually only pensioners or beneficiaries of some sort, such as widows, who can ever qualify for a State rental house. “This Government does not want young couples to get into State rental homes. It wants to push them into high-rental or high-lease flats. That is what is happening in Christchurch Central.”

Mr Barclay also claimed that the National Government’s capitalisation policy was to allow an income of up to $5B a week for the capitalisation of the family benefit. This meant that if family earnings were $6O a week, the benefit could not be capitalised. “Increases in the cost of houses have put them beyond the reach of young people,” Mr Barclay said. “In 1966 the difference between the loan limit allowed by the State Advances Corporation and the cost of a section and house was $2600. In 1969 it had crept up to $2BOO. Irf 1970 it was $3800; and the estimate at March, 1971, stands at $4300. “Young couples have got to have that amount of cash to finance a home of their own. This situation has been created by this National Government. The Minister of Finance is dampening down the economy by attacking the young married people.”

Local Government A plea for local government reform as advocated by the Local Government Commission was made by Mr R. L. G. Talbot (Nat., South Canterbury) during the debate. “We must accept reform in our local government structure,” he said. “We must support the commission when it publishes area plans for more rational regional government. "During the last century

our local government structure, and the responsibility it is empowered to accept, have not been subject to much reform. For many years there has been an. absence of a rational pattern of local administration; but through the actions of the Local Government Commission we will see the opportunities for a streamlining of local government “I am very pleased that tn my own area of South Canterbury the counties are meeting to discuss the possibilities and advantages of amalgamation. When the South Canterbury regional plan is announced, I hope that it will be put into effect. "Reform is needed because,

in all sections of our economy, there is this great need for change—this need for greater efficiency and for the cutting-out of waste. This must be done at all levels—in the Government, in industry, in the labour force, and last, but no means least, in local government.” Immigration The need for planned immigration, aimed at developing South Island resources to a level with those of the North, and to aim for a total population of 7m by the year 2000, was urged by Mr R. Drayton (Lab., St Albans).

He said that a realistic immigration policy should be backed by a matching housebuilding programme, which meant an imaginative lending programme. But above all, the immigration policy had to be realistic.

"If we want to expand out markets in South-East Asia, then surely it is advisable to allow some people from that region to come to New Zealand so that ethnic contacts can be safely built on knowledge.”

British settlement in New Zealand and Australia had perhaps been a source of strength, Mr Drayton said. “But I submit it may also be a sign of our weakness. I am sure that by a selective skimming of the world’s ethnic mixing-bowl we can get the very people we need, with the skills and know-how to develop our, and what will be their, nation.”

He suggested that the Australian policy had been more imaginative. Australia had taken Swiss, Swedes, Portuguese, Finns, French, Lebanese, Eurasians, Uruguayans, Chileans, Argentinians. Apart from this some 400,000 New Zealanders now lived permanently in Australia.