WHAT THE M.P.s WERE SAYING Shipping losses buried among various votes

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33942, 8 September 1975, Page 2

WHAT THE M.P.s WERE SAYING Shipping losses buried among various votes

WELLINGTON, . September 7. Opposition members have tried hard, but largely unsuccessfully, to unravel the fabric on loss and subsidy involved in the Government’s shipping enterprises.

During discussion on estimates, Mr C. C. A. McLachlan (National, Rakaia) said the man in the street was completely mystified as to what the Government policy in providing for coastal and overseas shipping was i costing him. A report on the 'Coastal Trader, presented to The Public Expenditure Committee, had said that the ship was run by the Shipping Corporation on behalf; of the Government and ran at a working loss involving a subsidy of slm a year, plus $7.29 a tonne of freight I uplifted. i “For some reason, the i Shipping Corporation’s Islands' traders Lorena and IToamoana had been chartered to Maori Affairs until March 31 this year, and the (department had expended : $2,200,000,’’ Mr McLachlan jsaid. “However, that item 'has been transferred to the Foreign Affairs vote. Why?” | Subsidies for shipping services amounting to another is2m had been transferred to i the Stabilisation Account I vote, Mr McLachlan said.

.The subsidy for the Welling-ton-Lyttelton ferry came i under the Transport vote. The Gove, ament had frozen railway charges — and that had been the crux of the problem. Mr R. L. G. Talbot (Nat., South Canterbury) said that New Zealand had one of the world’s slowest loading rates for container ships. The first need was for greater efficiency. During the last three years, the West Coast ports had been silting up, Mr Talbot said. Ships were leaving Westport only half-full. Why did not the Government hire a dredge and clean out the port? Of the Wellington-Lyt-telton service the Minister of Transport (Sir Basil Arthur) had said the Rangatira was not the right sort of vessel for the job — but there had to be regular continuity between Wellington and Lyttelton, and between Picton and Christchurch. What was happening about the minor ports? Employment record Opening the debate on questions, Mr N. J. Kirk (Lab., Sydenham) said that in a cyclical depression which was the worst since the 19305, New Zealand had a better employment record than that of any other country. He asserted that from i 960 to 1972, New Zealand had maintained a deliberate pool of registered unemployed. He mentioned seasonal workers who may choose whether to register. Married women were not refused registration. Full-employment policies had been maintained since November, 1972. “It is undeniable that the National Government’s stagnation policies put the party out of power,” he said. Mr Kirk said that the Government offered an incentive to get a job. National liked to keep up with overseas countries, If this had been done, New Zealand’s unemployment rate would be 56,000 to match Australia’s rate, 83,000 to match Canada’s rate, 44,000 to match France’s rate, 63,000 to match Britain’s rate, or even 108,000 to match the United States rate.

The Under-Secretary of Agriculture (Mr Barclay) said that the Opposition was not saying much about irrigation, though Opposition speakers had been quite vociferous during the last two years. The 49 proposals under investigation by the Ministry of Works represented a great advance on previous planning.

Mr Barclay said' that in 1972-73, the National Government had voted only slm for the development of new schemes, and there had been only two. In 1975-76, the amount voted was $2,600,000, and from Kihikihi in the north to Dunedin, 49 new schemes were being investigated. In the Maniototo

Valley, Otago, farmers had been waiting 90 years for a < scheme—it had been ap- 1 proved in principle last Dec-J ember, and would irrigate I 23,000 acres. s Housing ' The production of houses had increased from 22,000 < units a vear to well over 1 30,000, said Mr R. P. B. Dray- < ton (Lab., St Albans) during s discussion on questions, 1 “National members opposed i the passage of the Super- ■ annuation Bill and argued ’ that the Superannuation Cor- I poration should be entirely 1 independent,” he said. “Now, t when it is, to the extent that i its expenditure in housing t loans is not an open book, the Opposition complains.” ] Mr Drayton assured the < building industry and the i electors that there was no t chance that the production of ] houses would again slide to the levels of the 1960 s and early 19705. He expressed doubt as to whether a single house could be financed from the National Party’s proposed scheme. In this year’s programme, record sums were being devoted to both the Government’s own construction programme and to its lending programmes. Unrealistic on power , An assertion that the Gov- ' ernment’s record on electri- ; city operation and tariff had ! shown its inability to govern ! was made by Mr E. S. F. Holland (Nat., Riccarton) i during discussion on esti- i mates. I

'From

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY)

He said that in 1972, in order to attract votes, the Labour Party had promised not to increase bulk tariffs for three years. Ip spite of significant, changes in the whole energy outlook, it had retained that inflexible outlook. Recently, in answer to a question, the Minister of Electricity (Mr Bailey) had indicated that in order for the same contributions to be made to capital development as had been made between 1967 and 1972, bulk tariffs would have to be increased by 52 per cent. Subsequently, he had said that did not mean that the Government would increase bulk tariffs by that amount. What had he really meant? In the last three years, electricity consumers had made no contribution at all to future development, by the Electricity Department.