What the M.P.s were saying Budget debate ‘an archaic procedure’

Press, 21 July 1980, Page 2

What the M.P.s were saying Budget debate ‘an archaic procedure’

The traditional annual Budget debate was a “dialogue of the dead — an archaic procedure, and a useless state of affairs,” said the member for Marlborough (Mr D. L. Kidd) in the Budget debate. “It seems to me that, by and large, the exercise has over the years become more and more one of boring ourselves to death in a ritual of 92 half-hour -speeches,” Mr Kidd said. “I suspect that outside this chamber no-one cares a damn — nor should they. “The form and structure of the debate is an archaic response in times of modern economic management. Any business that concentrates its decision-making in an annual effort such as a Budget then lets the firm run itself for the rest of the year ought to be extinct, and in most instances is?’ The Budget debate w’as outmoded when the country’s affairs were managed by continuous scrutiny of the Minister of Finance and the Government. The member for Christchurch Central (Mr G. W. R. Palmer) said Parliament was “quite without adequate tools to probe, scrutinise, and question” the appropriation of the “colossal sum” $10.7 million (gross) that the Government planned to spend. It was not clear ‘ under which Budget programmes items of estimated expenditure fell. “Much can be hidden, and much is hidden, under these 1 estimates of expenditure,” i he said. . . ” Forward estimates of expenditure, several years in 1 advance, would force the Government to do some l long-term thinking, allow informed criticism of future« Government policies, and I create a more certain cli- < mate for investment, he i said. ] 1 ‘Needs ignored’ i Mr Palmer said the com- r munity housing and improvement programme in- ' troduced by the Minister of Housing and member for Rangiora (Mr D. F.. Quigley) did not benefit most people in central Christchurch. Horne . improvement loans were going to people with. money and good homes, not to half the residents in cen-1

1 tral Christchurch who lived - in rented accommodation. 1 “The urban renewal pol- * icies of the Government ig--1 nore the needs of half the 1 household in inner city areas ' of this country; people who are on low incomes and who T will be driven out of their ’homes if landlords snap up ; improvement loans and sell ; off the houses to those bet- ‘ ter able to afford it?’. i ‘No future’ i The Minister of Transport , and member for Selwyn (Mr ' McLachlan) knew there was [ no future in transport deli- , censing, said the member for . St Albans (Mr D. F. Cay- : gm). j “The Minister of Transf port knows, the delicensing, r if he goes as far as some of i his caucus want, will bankrupt the Railways. It will . add to the taxpayer’s burden \ of mounting losses on the j Railways and he knows that, f His problem is simply that I he cannot deal with his backbenches on the one hand and the industry on ’ the other.” : “He should start with the [ Railways, and do what a number of his own backbenchers want — set up a Railway corporation. It would enable the Railways to budget much more simply and straight-forwardly.” . Underspending Mr Caygill said that the Minister of Regional Development (Mr Cooper) had earned the greatest indictment possible for Cabinet [ members — underspending in a portfolio as critical as [ regional development. “If the Minister of Region- ■< al Development wants to know what he should do, I can tell him. He should extend assistance to cover, in particular, all the South Is- j land,” Mr Caygill said. i The Government’s “pick- i ing out piecemeal” recom'- r mendations on textile res- <

structuring* by the Industries i Development Commission was making other industries “desperate with worry,” that similar development studies would result in their demise as well.

0 On restructuring, the r member for Avon (Mrs p Mary Batchelor) said the ,1 Government was not rebuild- > ing at all, but destroying job opportunities, family life, and personal hope. “New Zealanders no longer have confidence in their lives because they are t haunted by the spectre of r unemployment they fear the s Government’s next action,” • she said. r “The Government is more ■ interested in allowing overseas business and industries ;- in,, than in giving New Zea- ;, landers jobs in New Zealand f industry.” 11 Firm ‘threatened’ e The Christchurch firm of I. tanners, G. L. Bowron and t Company, Ltd, was threats ened by “irresponsible” e statements by the member n for Papahui (Mr M. K. Moore) said the Under-Sec- > retary of Agriculture and i member for Ashburton (Mr . R. L. G. Talbot). Letters from the firm’s j general manager, Mr Bow- - ron, to the Minister of Trade I and Industry (Mr AdamsSchneider) and to Mr Moore, said his public statements were “absolute nonsense and dangerously misleading,” Mr Talbot said. “We would challenge that any leather processed from New Zealand raw skins can ; be re-impm ;ed at half the • domestic price, .the letter said. Experts in the trade should be consulted before such misinformed statements are made.” Wage negotiations Conflicting signals . from the Government on wage negotiations contributed to the Kinleith wage dispute, the member for. the West Coast and the Opposition spokesman on Labour (Mr T. K. Burke) told the House. The 1979 Tasman settle- . ment which destroyed parity in tradesmen’s wages and was achieved by strike action, did not invite intervention from the Government, even though the Government was a major shareholder, he said. When Kinleith tradesmen struck to achieve parity, and intervention was expected under the Remuneration Act, the Government signalled that no intervention wqs planned. When it did intervene suddenly, the parties had received insufficient notice, Mr Burke said.