What the M.P.s were saying Union offer on Rangatira

Press, 6 September 1976, Page 2

What the M.P.s were saying Union offer on Rangatira

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

A statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) that the Rangatira crew, specifically the Cooks and Stewards’ Union, had “priced themselves off the market,” moved the former Minister of Transport, Sir Basil Arthur (Lab., Timaru), to reveal some little-known facts about the Rangatira problem. Speaking during the debate on the second reading of the Finance Bill (which contains a clause validating the time-charter arrangement covering the ship), Sir Basil said there was no alternative at the time. “There was either an arrangement of this kind, or no service at all,” Sir Basil said. When the Union Steam Ship Company told the Labour Government in December, 1973. of its intention to withdraw the Rangatira. the Labour Government had decided that the service should be continued in the public interest, and that in the meantime the over-all question of interisland transport should be examined.

"It is a pity the Prime Minister and members of the Government did not do their homework on this issue,” Sir Basil said. “When the company stated its proposal to withdraw, the Ministry of Transport put proposals to the Labour Government on

the cost of continuing the service underwritten by the Government. A round figu e of losses of S4M a year was reached." Manning agreement Sir Basil said that the obvious way to help was to reduce manpower on the vessel. As Minister of Transport he had calle** a meeting

with representatives of the Cooks and Stewards* Union, the Seamen's Union, and the Waterside Workers' Union. They had agreed to reduce manning on condition that the Government agreed to underwrite its continuance.

“In the off-peak periods they agreed to closing 200 berths on each sailing,” Sir Basil said. “The cook* and stewards agreed to a reduction of 28 men per crew." Mr K. M. Comber (Nat., Wellington Central): It has taken nine month for us to hear this. Sir Basil: Members opposite were told at the time what was being done. Mr Comber: Ho, ho. Sir Basil said that the watersiders had agreed to reduce their permanent gangs in Wellington and Lyttelton by 12 men at each port “because it was a oneship operation instead of a two-ship one. “Those 12 men at each port who had ueen charged to the inter-island service exclusively went back to the waterfront pool. "This economic exercise resulted in an estimated saving of more than $600,000 over the 12-month period,” Sir Basil said. “Of course some of this sr ing was lost by increased costs, but I could not remain In my seat tonight and listen to the Prime Minister attack unions which had co-operated to the extent of agreeing to a reduction of 56 men on the ship in off-peak periods.” Abortion bill The decision on a conscience vote to shelve the Hospitals Amendment BUI was the result of individual decisions by private members. The decision was close, and four members voting the other way could have made the difference.

Mr R. L. G. Talbot (Nat., South Canterbury) was one

of those who voted against the postponement. He told the House that he believed that the proliferation of such institutions as the Remuera clinic should be stopped until the Royal Commission had made its report. “In the last two years, this 'non-profit trust* has turned its initial investment of $430 into net assets totalling $148,000 — a profit that any businessman must envy,” Mr Talbot said. “The clinic’s income in less than two years was $479,855, and its excess of income over expenditure $139,000.” Mr Talbot said that unless some action were taken to relieve the position, an abor-tion-on-demand situation would develop. Twelve months was too long to wait. “I cannot understand those who are pro-life, and who are prepared to wait a year, while lives are being unnecessarily destroyed . . . “There is no guarantee that legislation enacting the Royal commission’s recommendations, to be made in the report yet to be completed, will be passed immediately. Any delaying of the present legislation will inevitably cost many lives.” Taxation hoist Speaking on the Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill, M: M. A. Connelly (Lab., Wigram) described it as “one of a bracket which hoists taxation to record levels.”

He said that this year the income-tax provision was $lOO greater for each person than last year. Total taxation was up more than $ll6 a head. “The Government says it wants an expanding and

developing economy,” Mr Connelly said. “Will the tax yield from this bill do this?” The Government had taken another S3OOM in income tax, and at the same time it was adopting an economic policy of cutting back expenditure in vital areas, thereby plunging productive resources into unemployment. He regarded the provision to provide relief for people whose income was $lOO a week or less as inadequate. "On the other hand, in a full year about S6OM will go to businessmen aged between 60 and 64.”

Mr Connelly described the bill as another move by the Government to place the burden of financing the economy on the shoulders of those people who are least able to bear it. Stabilisation

Mr B. G. Barclay (Lab,, Christchurch Central) noted that the Minister of Justice (Mr Thomson) had described the stabilisation vote as dangerous. ‘The record inflation internally has been brought about by the alterations to stabilisation made by the National Government,” Mr Barclay said. “There are thousands of people in New Zealand whose take-home pay is less than $75 a week. They were the ones who were helped by the subsidies removed by the National Government. “Every day 100,000 extra bottles of milk are paid for by the Government. These do not go to the consumers. Why does the Government continue to pay the farmers for milk, and not make it available to the women and children who need it?”