What the M.Ps were saying

Press, 26 June 1978, Page 2

What the M.Ps were saying

Conflict of policies as debate dies

In the final stages of the Budget debate, members hammered the differing policies of National and Labour, and charges of South Island neglect received another airing.

Mr M. A. Connelly (Lab., Wigram) opened his speech with an assurance that “the South Island will get a fair deal in November when a Labour Government is returned to office.” He reminded Parliament of how the present Government had stopped the ferry service, closed railway branch lines, raised freight rates, and “destroyed” Rolleston. “The Labour Party has pledged that it will restore the vital regional development programme which meant so much to the South Island ... it will provide a uniform price for L.P.G. at main distribution points throughout New Zealand. A freight and passenger service will be re-established between Lyttelton and Wellington, and through rates for the inter-island rail freigh freight will be introduced,” Mr Connelly said.

He described the Air New Zealand-N.A.C. merger, and the subsequent elimination of some scheduled overseas flights from Christchurch Airport, as disastrous. Mr Connelly said that the recent Budget confirmed that the policies adopted by the third Labour Government, to support the economy at a time of economic crisis, was correct in the circumstances, and should have been continued.

The Labour levy Mr D. F. Quigley (Nat., Rangiora) devoted his time to an analysis of the Budget as compared with Labour’s “alternative.” He then turned to New Zealand’s obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. “What is the Opposition’s attitude to G.A.T.T.?” he asked. “This internatinal agreement contains binding obligations, and in the past New Zealand has not been slow to remind other mem-

ber countries of these provisions.” “I refer particularly to the sheep-meats regime. Perhaps a future Labour government would attempt to rely on article 25 of G.A.T.T., which allows the use of multiple currency exchange fees for balance-of-payments protection, with the approval of the International Monetary Fund.

“Some South American countries have relied on multiple currency exchange fees, and they have not been particularly successful in dealing with their overseas exchange problems, or with inflation. Leaving aside the question of illegality, if the Labour Party is able to introduce the surcharge on foreign exchange, will it receive the S4OOM it will need?”

Mr Quigley noted that New Zealand’s total exchange payments for the year ended March, 1978, amounted to $4652M. Ten percent of that was the figure Labour was discussing and it had proposed many exceptions. Private payments for the year ended in March totalled $1263M. By the time Labour’s exemptions were allowed, it was doubtful if a future Labour government would receive more than S2SM he said. Similarly, taxation of private imports would raise more questions than revenue.

Mr Quigley summed up: “A Labour government would be lucky to raise §2OOM through the use of its surcharge. Does this mean that to get its §4OOM Labour would impose a 20 per cent surcharge?” Dynamism queried Opposition South Island members had another chance on Wednesday when the House discussed a notice of motion by Mr W. E. Cooper (Nat, Otago Central) praising the “dynamic” progress made in the South Island under the Government’s regional development policies.

Mr B. G. Barclay (Lab., Christchurch Central) re-

ferred to the withdrawal from the National Party in Dunedin in 1972 of Mr R. F. Walls. He had said that his withdrawal was on a matter of principle, related to regional development. Now Mr Walls, as National member for Dunedin North, had been given “the kiss of death” by the Chief Government Whip, who had asked him to move Mr Cooper’s motion. (Mr Cooper was absent). “I emphasise that the member for Dunedin North resigned from the National Party in November, 1972, after experiencing the previous National Government’s regional development programme,” Mr Barclay said.

“In 1972 the Labour Gov[ernment was elected and in- : stigated a very good regional ■ development policy. In 197576, regional development grants totalled more than S4M. Under National they fell to $3.6M, and in 1977-78 to $2.9M,” Budget deficits Sir Basil Arthur (Lab., Timaru) reminded the House of the words of the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Wilkinson) in 1976: “A thousand-million-dollar deficit before borrowing is something we cannot live with unless we want to court disaster.” This year, said Sir Basil, the deficit before borrowing was more than §IOOOM — and the real deficit, according to the Prime Minister’s method of calculation when he was in Opposition, would be half as much again. Sir Basil said that he had moved the motion under discussion to give the AttorneyGeneral a chance to explain himself. He said that the present Budget provided for a deficit before borrowing of §IOSOM. “Yet when he had just taken office in December, 1975, the present Minister of Finance, referring to a Labour Government deficit of SBBOM, has said that it was a major problem for the incoming National Government.”