Budget ‘flagrant plea for votes after Govt fails N.Z.’

Press, 7 June 1978, Page 1

Budget ‘flagrant plea for votes after Govt fails N.Z.’

The Government’s Budget was just a flagrant plea for votes, said the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rowling) in Parliament last evening.

Mr Rowling said that the Government had failed the nation ... in housing, unemployment, inflation, industrial relations — “you name it,” the Press Association reports. The Budget contained no plan or philosophy, Mr Rowling said. It was just “a flagrant plea for votes written by a Minister who is shorn of everv vestiee of political credibility leading a Government that is politically bankrupt.” New Zealand would have to "continue dancing the Ton’ Waltz of one step forward, two steps back.” Mr Rowling said. Not one family had escaped the pain of the Government’s strategy of "stop-go” politics.

The strong words the Government had spoken 'n and 1977 had turned out to be “so much ruhb'sh,” Mr Rowling said. Under National, there had been record borrowing at home and overseas, and the Budget deficit had totalled SISOOM.

Mr Rowling said that in March he had predicted a Budget deficit exceeding SIOOOM and the Prime Minister (Mr MuldonnY had resorted to his “usual put-down tactics” and had described the estimate as a “shot in the dark.”

“The light at the end of the tunnel” which Mr Muldoon had predicted in 1976 had become “infinitelv dimmer” by the end.of 1977 Last week’s Budget would be remembered as a “lolly scramble.”

Mr Rowling said there was no wav New Zealand could afford to continue on its present coarse — “bitter, divided, where the law of the jungle of every man for himself has become the norm.” Under National, New Zealand had suffered a net loss of 47.000 people and had lost a million man-working-days “with all the

suffering, wastage, and bitterness that that involves.” The tax reforms announced in the Budget had both good and bad aspects, but over-all genuine tax reform in New Zealand was still awaited. Labour would soon release details of its tax proposals, Mr Rowling said. These would include people’s being allowed a basic income free of tax, the size of the basic taxfree income for a family increasing with the lumber of dependants. Parents of teen-age child-

ren would receive tax concessions, tax rates would rise in a series of plateau to cut out a big disincentive to increased production, and overtime would be taxed at a standard rate. Labour’s tax package would be balanced, responsible and practical, create job opportunities and protect New Zealand against international “shock waves.” More important, said Mr Rowling, it would create more of a sense of national identity than that achieved

by the National Government. The Budget did nothing for farmers in terms of the cost of money, or the cost and inefficiency of transport, he said. The Budget had compounded transport costs for farmers with rail costs up 12.5 per cent and petrol up. Mr Rowling blasted the Social Credit leader and member for Rangitikei (Mr B. C. Beetham) on this, as Mr Beetham had voted with the Government for the increase in petrol tax. Whenever there was a crucial vote Mr Beetham disappeared or “scampered to vote with the Government,” said Mr Rowling, who labelled the Social Credit leader a “de facto member of the National Party.” Mr Rowling said that under Labour, interest rates in the farming and housing sectors would be held back and financial institutions would come under closer scrutiny. Until the present Budget, fanners had been neglected, but "farmers are not going to be bought at any political auction.” Of the guaranteed minimum price scheme for farmers, Mr Rowling said its basis was: “The more

you have the more you’ll get.”

Mr Rowling said regionalism had been subject to absolute neglect under the National Government. The regional development vote in real terms was down 6 per cent in the Budget. Mr Rowling said that people must be given support to pursue local projects. Resources for regional development were not unlimited, he said, but priorities must be set and much could be done with existing resources. The Government had made a farce of promoting exports by naming this

"Export Year.” In 1977 it had said that consultations with interested parties would be undertaken and in the 1978 Budget it had said these consultations had started.

“Well, so had Export Year,” said Mr Rowling, adding: “If this Government could export reports we would be in business.” He accused the Government of being shackled to “its money-lending friends” and pointed to higher interest bills for energy funds as an example of the high cost to the nation of the Government’s interest policy.

Labour’s Budget, page 3