Disillusionment after the big debate

Press, 18 June 1979, Page 2

Disillusionment after the big debate

What the M.Ps were saying

From

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

A certain disillusionment among younger members was apparent when the first big Parliamentary debate ended last Monday. The mood was identified by the mover of the Address-in-Replv debate, Mr D. L. Kidd (Nat., Marlborough) when winding up the debate: “Not many weeks ago there were calls from all round the land to bring Parliament together,” he said.

“There were matters to be debated. Grave questions were to be decided. We came

! together, and at the opening of the debate it was proinounced from the other side iof the House that ‘a view !of the country’ had been seen.

“I waited and waited, and I consulted my colleagues, [but none of us have seen it. (The clouds have yet to rise |— and the debate is over.” Mr Kidd said he had ex-j : pccted a critical examination j iof Government policies. He had thought that the Opposition would have put forward I some alternatives. “Such I little attention as was given Ito that aspect was so inconclusive and unhelpful as Ito have been worthless,” he |said. Telephone tapping Mr N. J. Kirk (Lab., Sydenham) asked what the j Postmaster-G ene r a 1 (Mr Couch) was doing about alleIgations of telephone tapping. “I hope the Postmaster- ■ General will feel duty-bound [ to inform all New Zealand of his concern about the misuse of telephones, and that he [will allow them to know how much tapping is done, and where,” said Mr Kirk. “We are certain it is going on, and this should be known to be public.” Mr Couch: You could lay a complaint. Mr Kirk: I can assure the Postmaster-General that the next Postmaster-General will not allow it. Mr Couch: You haven’t i laid a complaint with me as I yet. Mr Kirk: What is the use 'of laying a complaint when | the people responsible are I the ones with whom the comj plaint would be laid?

Mr Kirk then revealed a little of the Opposition’s strategy. “My time, is short,” he said, “because we know how thin the Order Paper is, and we know how much the Government is trying to pack it out to fill in the evening. I don’t want to be any assis- | tance in filling in the evening.

Drugs anti violence

i Mr M. A. Connelly (Lab., Yaldhurst) said that in spite of the action taken by the police on drug offences, rhe incidence of drug abuse and drugs-related violence had increased during the term of the National Government. “I am amazed that the Government, whose leader said he would never be satisfied until drug trafficking was stamped out, should refuse the co-operation of the public and the Opposition in helping it to do a job it is unable to carry out effectively itself.” Mr Connelly said that the police had said they wanted witnesses rather than extra powers. “The problem is not so much that the police have insufficient powers as in obtaining the co-operation of the people who can provide i evidence,” he said. I Mr Connelly said that the Commissioner of Police had implied that some persons i might want to give information but might be diffident about doing so. “It may well be that those who are reluctant to do that would be prepared to give evidence to a committee of the House.” If the select committee deemed it desirable, it would not be necessary for the evidence to be given in public. Public expenditure The report of the Public Expenditure Committee brought fireworks on Friday morning. There was sharp comment on the planning and performance of the Ministry of Works concerning the Kaimai tunnel, and some deep thinking on the role of the select committee itself. The Under-Secretary for Agriculture, Mr R. L. G. Talbot (Nat., Ashburton) expressed surprise about his embroilment in the debate. He noted the widened activi-

ties of the committee over recent years. Of the comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Tizard), he said: “I would' have thought we would have had something positive from him, but he suggested" only that he was in favour of the sinking-lid policy — or of shooting some State servants. What sort of constructive comment is that?”

The 1978 report of the committee, Mr Talbot said, was positive and factual, and deserved similar comment. The report was being followed up by a special task force which would report back to the Public Expenditure Committee. The interim report had spelled out problem areas in Government departments, and had pointed to areas in which immediate action was required. Mr Connelly, who has been a member of the Public Expenditure Committee for the last 20, years, admitted that techniques adopted by the committee had continued to evolve, to ensure the most effective discharge of the committee’s functions. “The member for Ashburton said that financial management was a policy of the National Government,” Mr Connelly said. “I want to tell him" that when the Audit Department first drew Parliament’s attention to the! need for initiatives in financial management, I chaired a sub-committee of the Public Expenditure Committee and recommended that this should be pursued.

“That recommendation was adopted, which is why the question of financial management is considered by the committee. The committee’s report on the Kaimai tunnel was slanted in such a way as to imply that private contractors were motivated more highly by time and cost factors than was the Ministry of Works and Development, and would not have countenanced delays to the same extent.

“This implies mismanagement on the part of the Ministry. It is a slur on the reliability, veracity, and reputability of the. Ministry and its officers. As a former Minister of Works, I was responsible for a period for the Kaimai project. I refute those allegations.”