The Press WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1972. Costing the promises

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33068, 8 November 1972, Page 16

The Press WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1972. Costing the promises

While the leader of the Labour Party (Mr Kirk), speaking in Christchurch, affected disappointment that Mr Muldoon had not yet announced the cost of implementing Labour’s election promises, the Prime Minister (Mr Marshall) was telling an audience in Gisborne that Labour’s plans would cost the State an extra $6OO million a year. When Mr Kirk reached Blenheim the next day he assured his audience there that the figure was erroneous; furthermore, it was a figure that had been put in the hands of a certain person so that it would reach the Prime Minister. This suggestion that a misleading figure had been dextrously “ planted ” on the Prime Minister added an interesting touch to the customary wrangle over the cost of election promises; so did Mr Kirk’s statement that the National Party’s “ promises ” had already been carried out in anticipation of the election. This action by the Government makes it much easier for Mr Kirk to establish the “ cost ” of National’s “ promises ” — none of which he appears to want to reverse. If he asks Government departments they will no doubt supply information on the cost of specific Government decisions or Labour plans. He must know, of course, that the Treasury declines to undertake the general costing of manifestos for either party.

At Murchison, Mr Kirk was reported to have said that Labour knew the cost of its undertakings — as, indeed, the party should, if it is sure that the figure of $6OO million is wrong. At New Plymouth Mr Marshall challenged Mr Kirk to have the figure disproved by referring Labour promises — with specific explanations of Labour intentions — to the appropriate departments. All this has been getting the voter no further towards an understanding of what the party programmes will mean to the taxpayers.

In any event, how could the most conscientious departmental accountant put a cost on such promises of the Labour Party as the State purchase of properties from farmers who are facing bankruptcy through no fault of their own? At the moment, such fanners are hard to find. Labour undertakes to pay the whole cost of buildings put up by charitable organisations for the aged and infirm. Is there a great outlay here? Probably not; the present grants virtually cover the cost of such buildings already. What of the subsidy up to 75 per cent on transport costs of approved industries in selected regions? No-one knows which regions, or which industries, will be favoured. Mr Kirk complains, not unreasonably, of the charges being made by some medical practitioners, and he promises that Labour would reduce the patient’s bill to a “ minor ” charge by increasing the general medical services benefit. But does Mr Kirk believe that doctors’ incomes are too high or too low? Only when his opinion on this and on what is meant by “minor” has been determined will anyone be able to calculate what the State would have to pay.

These are simple examples of the difficulty of calculating the cost of broad and far from specific promises. By assuming a certain level of pay increases for Government employees it should be possible to estimate the cost to the taxpayer of holding the charges for State services for three years, as promised by Labour. Mr Marshall presumably made such assumptions before announcing details of his own estimate of the cost of Labour’s programme. The problem is further complicated by Labour’s promise that the “ over-all objectives ” described in the Labour manifesto “will be implemented speedily “ and as rising gross national product and increasing “ real wealth makes possible In other words, Implementing the policy will be governed by a rate of economic growth that cannot confidently be predicted. Perhaps Mr Kirk should stick to his astute foreword to the Labour manifesto and admit frankly that he cannot say what his promises will cost the nation.