Treasury head criticises article by Mr Muldoon

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33477, 7 March 1974, Page 2

Treasury head criticises article by Mr Muldoon

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 6. The Secretary to the Treasury (Mr 11. G. Lang) today sharply criticised the Deput) Leader of the Opposition (Mr Muldoon) for comments Mr Muldoon made in a newspaper article on parts of Mr Lang’s evidence to the Select Committee on the Superannuation Bill.

The criticism wash contained in a written submission by Mr Lang, tabled when the committee's hearing; resumed. He said it had been agreed when the decision was made to take the Treasury submissions in open meeting that it i would be appropriate for the 1 Treasury representatives to answer technical questions. Mr Lang said it had been ' made clear by the Minister of 1 Finance (Mr Rowling)—and ! this had been accepted by ! other committee members— ■ that it would not be appro- ' pnate for the Treasury' to' 1 answer questions on policy I issues which were the subject of advice by the Trea-,' sun to the Minister. \ I “This was in accord with ■ the long-standing tradition in this country of not involving a department or departmental head in political ex- i changes." Mr Lang said “In the light of subsequent : developments I now feel it 1 necessarv to place on record 1 mv concern about the wav in which some of the answers I 1 gave to the Select Commit-ij tee have been used ” < Mr Muldoon had referred 1 to part of Mr Lang’s evi-j dence in the article. "Not so 1 super.” which appeared in a • Wellington newspaper on February 23. I "In this article he attemp- < ted to use my evidence to 1 support his contention that > the proposed superannuation 1 scheme had not been fully considered.” Mr Lang said. 1 “He stated that 'many vital 1 questions relating to the im-.' piementation of the Govern- <

intent superannuation scheme have not been satisfactorily answered, and in some cases; it is clear that these matters have not yet been considered’. Objective evidence does not support this statement. QUESTIONS STUDIED “A committee I chaired and which, in addition to the: Commissioner of Inland Revenue. the Director-General of Social Welfare and the Government Actuary, included a leading consulting actuary and an actuarv seconded from the Life Offices Associ-I ation. considered all vital: questions and advised the Government on a range of possible courses of action. “The fact that the answers that I have so far given, before the committee do not: satisfy Mr Muldoon is irrelevant. He can. of course, reject all answers on the subjective grounds that they do not fit his own opinions, but) he is not entitled to’say that; the issues have not yet been considered or answers produced. "If Mr Muldoon was at-! tempting to give an accurate impression of my evidence on this whole point he should: have reported my clear reply to a question from him! that I was satisfied the scheme could start on April, I, 1975. Instead he suggests! by inference that my evidence supnorts his contention that ’it is impossible to 'mplement a scheme within two vears and a half.’ “I find this a most dis-j tressing breach of the courteous and careful relationship ‘hat normally exists on issues! of this type between a de-i

partmental head and a senior member of the House of Rep,j resentatives.” Mr Muldoon said later in reply that Mr Lang was inaccurate when he said that objective evidence did not I support the statement that “many vital questions relating to the implementation of the Government’s superannu ation scheme have not been satisfactorily answered, and in some cases it is clear that these matters have not vei been considered. “Mr Lang did not give a .clear reply to a question (from me that he was satisfied that the scheme could start on April 1, 1975,” Mr Mui !doon said. “His reply was qualified bv saying ‘providing the bill was passed by the end of August.’ I made no other inference. “The fact that the committee has been denied ac-

• cess to the regulations under ■ the bill supports my statement that many vital questions 1 have not been satisfactorily ■ answered. t “The evidence so far put : before the committee further supports that contention, as each witness has made it Lclear that on the material published uo until this time 1 they do not have full answers I to the questions that concern ithem. “When Mr Lang again appears before the committee 1 1 propose to examine him on 1 these matters in detail, but at I i this stage I merely record the fact that 1 regard it as improper that a statement of ;■ this nature should be put be- : fore the committee as a ■ privileged document and released to the press without the committee being notified 1 that it was attached to the 1 answers to questions.”