N.D.C.’s targets attacked

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32861, 9 March 1972, Page 1

N.D.C.’s targets attacked

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, March 8.

Targets set by the National Development Council’s targets advisory group were attacked at today’s National Development Conference.

The first of two invited commentators, the chairman of the Monetary and Economic Council (Professor A. D. Brownlie), said that the targets made no allowance for such factors as technical progress.

Current account measures of gross national product did not take account of the harmful effects that increased G.N.P. might have on the environment, he said. In some cases expenditure should be added to the G.N.P. rather than subtracted from it. Increases in G.N.P. could, in fact, be associated with a decrease in social welfare.

“No advantage”

The second invited commentator, a Wellington economist, Dr G. A. Lau, said that he found it difficult to see how a growth in G.N.P. as significant as that outlined by the targets advisory group could be achieved.

“I can see no long-term advantage in increasing per capita G.N.P. beyond 2.3 per cent if this can only be done at the expense of what we call our enjoyment of life,” he said.

Referring to industrial relations, Dr Lau said that under the old system of arbitration, costs led to increased wages, but the process was a slow one. Since the Arbitration Court’s nil wage order, however, wage increases had pushed up costs. Adequate profits were necessary to keep the wheels of industry going. Dr Lau said. The Federation of Labour was the most powerful body in the country. This power

carried responsibility, and the F.O.L. should understand that profits were necessary. Mr M. W. Hancock, a member of the social council, questioned whether growth was essential. The physical, cultural and social environment did not necessarily depend on a high G.N.P., he said.

He moved an amendment to the resolution of acceptance of the report of the targets advisory council, suggesting that a developing economy “may contribute” to an improved physical, social and cultural environment. The amendment was later lost.

Mr E. E. Isbey, the Labour M.P. for Grey Lynn, questioned the whole basis of calculation of the targets. “No matter what targets we have had, they’re no use if they become incompatible with economic factors,” he said. “You can’t do it if there’s uncertainty at the end of the period.” Statistics lack The Government Statistician (Mr J. P. Lewin) said that his department was responsible for the lack of satisfactory statistics for use in setting the targets. "Manpower resources have simply not been made available to the department to do the job,” he said.

(Conference reports; Page 2)