WHAT THE M.P.s WERE SAYING Is the South Island being discriminated against?

Press, 19 July 1976, Page 2

WHAT THE M.P.s WERE SAYING Is the South Island being discriminated against?

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

An assertion that in its short term of office the National Government has carried out an unjustifiable attack on the South Island was made on Friday by the former Minister of Police, Mr M. A. Connelly (Lab., Wigram). Mr Connelly made his objection during the introduction of the Prime Minister’s finance bill, designed to validate alleged overspending by the Labour Government last year. Speaking to clause 4 of the bill— which authorises an increase in the subscription to the South Island Local Bodies Association, Inc.; Mr Connelly said: “Because of the unjustified attack that the Government is making on the South Island, this provision is urgently needed. The Government has attacked the transport system, cut back railway passenger schedules, closed trunk lines, and failed to provide the National Roads Board with adequate funds to carry out urgently needed reading and bridging in the South Island. “Transport costs have increased, and the Government has failed to make freight subsidies available through the Development Finance Corporation to enable South Island manufacturers to compete on an equal basis on the northern markets.

“there have been cutbacks in the vital irrigation developments necessary to lift productivity and diversify farming, thus increasing our overseas earnings. Regional development has been cut back by slm at a time when it is vital to provide for unemployment and growth.” In subsequent argument,

Mr Connelly maintained his point that the South Island Local Bodies’ Association should be voted extra fupds. FINANCIAL CARRYOVER As a senior member of last year’s Labour Government, Mr Connelly took a major part in its defence against Mr Muldoon’s allegations of overspending. He made the point that in any three-year change of government there must be a carryover. Just as the 197275 Labour Government had to accept the financial overflow of the previous National Government, so the present National Government had to accept the overflow of the Labour Government. “When Parliament adjourned last year before the General Election, expenditure had not exceeded the authorised limit,” Mr Connelly said. “The Labour Government intended to call Parliament together to take certain action to authorise expenditure which it was known was likely to come to charge, for instance, increased wages and salaries to State servants and increased welfare payments. “If the National Party had been the Government two years ago, and had followed the policy it announced today, then we would have had large-scale unemployment.” Mr Connelly’s attitude to the Government’s retrench, ment policy was set out in his speech in the Address-in-Reply debate earlier in the week. “What is the credibility of a Government which says in its policy that' it will improve the quality of family life, sets up a Cabinet committee ostensibly for that purpose, and immediately takes action over a wide

field which can only be harmful to the family and the environment in which it lives?" Mr Connelly asked. “Is It suggested that the overexpenditure of s2om on wheal subsidies should not have been made? Would the Government have cut State servants’ salaries by not passing on the authorised increase? Should it have cut public works expenditure by not authorising the amount proposed to be voted? Should it have cut the fertiliser spreading subsidy, which cost the country about s9om this year?” WORLD VIEW An assurance that New Zealand’s foreign policy stood high in the world was given by Mr R. L. G. Talbot (Nat., South Canterbury) during his Address-in-Reply speech. Mr Talbot, recently returned from an overseas tour, took up the cudgels against both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rowling), who had said that the National Government’s foreign affairs policy whs "in tatters,” and the president, of the Labour Party, Mr A. J. Faulkner, who said that the Third World was in doubt about New Zealand. “It appears that the Third World is all he is concerned about,” Mr Talbot said. “He is not worried about Our image in the United States, in the United Kingdom, in the Middle East, in Asia, or in Japan. I assure the member for Roskill that New Zealand’s image overseas has never been as high as it is at present. That is a result of the leadership given this country overseas by our Prime Minister. “Not only do Labour members accept the United States and the Anzus Pact

member for Timaru (Sir Basil Arthur) when speaking earlier in this debate, actually damned United States policy and got his sticky fingers into that country’s internal problems.” When Mrs M. D. Batchelor (Lab., Avon) asked the Minister of Social Welfare (Mr Walker) whether the slm saved through the purge on solo parents would be put back into child-care facilities, she promoted quite an argument. Mr Walker explained that the sl.lm "saved" by the inquiry represented money wrongly received by certain beneficiaries. The termination of this sort of irregularity had nothing to do with the establishment of priorities under the social welfare vote. Mrs Batchelor: What does the Government intend to do about the children of these people when the benefit has been cut off because the parent is living in a de facto relationship and the de facto person is unable to keep his partner’s family? Mr Walker: These benefits are paid by Statute. If the parent of a child attending a child-care centre is unable to afford the fees, an allowance of $4.50 weekly is paid by the department. The allocation of funds must be considered in relation to other pressing needs. Mrs Batchelor: Can I take it that this $4.50 is the only help the parents of these children can expect to receive? Mr Walker: Any further assistance will be decided on the basis of their priority, in comparison with others, such as crippled children, the intellectually handicapped, the aged, orphans, and so on. Any delay in giving additional benefits at this time is a result entirely of the state of the economy.