Party politicking theme of debate

Press, 22 May 1978, Page 2

Party politicking theme of debate

From CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

The Address-in-Reply debate, which was once a tribute to the Monarch and- a chance for members of Par--1 liament to talk about their [electorates, is this year i plainly a vehicle for partyi political advertisement. The leaders set the pattern — and the more humble j members, having to follow on, had to do the best they could. Doubly incapacitated was Mr R. P. B. Drayton (Lab., St Albans), who followed the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon), and who rose amid the Government applause when Mr Muldoon sat down. But Mr Drayton took a line of his own in deriding the Government’s efforts among the farmers. He reminded the House of the National Party promise to control farm costs by controlling inflation. “What a sham and hollow boast,” Mr Drayton said. “I wonder why we, as members of Parliament, are now receiving so many letters from people in rural communities about the disadvantages, particularly under this Government, of living there? “Those promises, and the lack of action since, I must acknowledge were later reflected in the election result in Rangitikei.” He said that while working there (admittedly without much success) he had been surprised at how areas such as the Turakina Valley had deserted National in disgust. These people had simply not gone to the polls, he said. Telephones Mr Drayton said that one of the smaller promises made in the National Party’s 1975 manifesto was that the waiting-lists for automatic telephone exchanges would be reduced. “I have travelled the country over the last three years, and know that many smaller communities still have hand-cranked telephones. It is ironic to note that in some of these districts another organisation dependent on electronic communication, is able to provide these people with computer betting. I wonder where the National Government’s priorities lie?” asked Mr Drayton. Regional help

Mr D. F. Quigley (Nat., Rangiora) picked up comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rowling) in the debate. "I noticed that at the recent Labour Party conference the member for Heretaunga (Mr R. L. Bailey) said the former Labour Government, when it was in office, had pumped SSOM into regional development,” Mr Quigley said. “Well, I have counted up the money spent in my Rangiora electorate during the last two years and a half and I can tell the member for Heretaunga that substantially more money has been spent in the electorate during that period than the Labour Government pumped into the whole of New Zealand during its three years of office,” he said. “Let us look at the regional development investments: education, almost S2M; Post Office expenditure. SI.6M; works, almost $IOM; and on railways, including the Marl- 1

borough electorate and other parts of New Zealand between Pfcton and Christchijrch, .$10,269,000 has been spent on special and capital works and maintenance,” Mr Quigley sgjd. “On water and sewerage schemes in the Rangiora electorate, S2.BM has been spent,” Mr Quigley said that in addition, $700,000 was to be spent on an old people’s home in Rangiora which was to be built by the Presbyterian Social Services Association. Total expenditure on irrigation schemes at Waiau, Loburn, and Glenmark would amount to more than SI6M. “Oil exploration has already been carried out in the Rangiora area,” Mr Quigley said. “A projected hydro-electric scheme will cost more than S4OM. These are the facts,” he said. They show, first, that substantial progress has been made in bringing New Zealand’s economy back into balance, and second, that even in difficult times it has been possible to make money available for capital projects which will contribute to further productive growth in the community. Third, that the National Government, unlike its predecessor, has been prepared to make decisions, whether or not those decisions have been unpopular,” said Mr Quigley. Unemployment

Following Mr A. G. Malcolm (Nat., Eden) in the A d d r e s s-In-Reply debate, Mrs M. D. Batchelor (Lab., Avon) produced the best simile of the debate when she described his speech as “rather like eating marshmallow with mustard.”

“He played with figures, but one cannot change statistics,” Mrs Batchelor said. “You can do what you like with the actual figures, but in no way can any member get over the fact that these statistics clearly show that today unemployment in New Zealand is at the highest level since the 19305. “The member for Eden said that New Zealand has done better than other O.E.C.D. countries, but I fail to see how that comforts our unemployed. It is no help to those in difficulty paying mortgage interest, and feeding, clothing, and sending their children to school. He said that industrial relations are not perfect, and never will be. . . But the Government should be working hard to make industrial relations a little better than they are,” said Mrs Batchelor.

She charged the Government with creating the Kawerau dispute with its industrial policies: “The Government has the dubious distinction of being only the second in New Zealand history under which one million working days have been lost through industrial stoppages.”

The South Island

Mrs Batchelor said that it seemed the South Island had been forgotten by the Government. South Island people believed they had a lifestyle which was being eroded.

“The South Island is experiencing the closing of more and more factories and a lack of business activity, with the resultant withering-

away of many communities. Many South Islanders feel cut off from the mainstream and cast adrift from the rest of the country — and this is hardly surprising when one considers how they have been treated in recent years,” she said. “The Government’s policies have changed the face i of the South Island, and we ; in the south do not believe it is a change for the better.” Long-term interests Mr E. G. Latter (National, Marlborough) said he believed that the issue before New Zealand in the coming election was .the long-term against the short-term interests of the country. “The electors must ask themselves, ‘ls there any alternative?’ I do not believe there is,” he said. He asked how many electors understood the prin- , ciples of Social Credit. These principles were known and approved by members of the first Labour Government — but were wisely discarded when Labour first came to power. “It is all right to give one man a go — but are they prepared to give the whole system a go, and risk the inflation that could lead to the complete ruination of our money and currency system?” he asked. He called on Labour to say clearly what it proposed to do. Would a Labour Gov? ernment get funds from a tax on capital gains? Did the proposal to “put teeth into price control” mean another attempt at the M.R.P. scheme? Labour, Mr Latter said, was the party which gave railways the “kiss of death”. It certainly did this to the railcar concept, because it would not reorder. Across the House, Mr Latter asked the Leader of the , Opposition (Mr Rowling): “Will he come out into the open and answer me? Does the Labour Party really have an ‘iron bridge’ concept for Cook Strait?” Mr Rowling: When I am ready. ] Mr Latter: He is not ready. The member for Wigram (Mr M. A. Connelly) made that statement a while ago. The stupidity is exposed. The “iron bridge” concept' would ruin coastal shipping by more than doubling the S3M it would cost annually to subsidise a Wellington-Lyttelton service.