Govt ‘has done nothing to reduce causes of crime’

Press, 22 September 1980, Page 2

Govt ‘has done nothing to reduce causes of crime’

From

OLIVER RIDDELL

The previous year had been the most violent in New Zealand’s history, with the greatest level of crime of all time, the member for Yaldhurst (Mr M. A. Connelly) told the House last week. However, no constructive action had been undertaken by the Government to reduce the causes of crime, the worst cause of which was its policy of unemployment.

- More unemployment was forecast, he said. Unemployment figures had already reached 60,000 and were forecast to reach 70,000. As a result, more crime could be expected. However, no provision had been made for more uniformed police, more motor transport or community police. An increase of 37 civilians had released 30 police to other duties.

During a recent serious outbreak of crime in Auckland it had been reported that the police had been working 15 hours overtime a day on three major crimes, Mr Connelly said. It had been reported that police had been shifted to Auckland from other centres. That was no answer to the policing problem as it reduced police effectiveness elsewhere. The police needed more frontline men immediately.

Lands Board dispute

The man in the street thought the Marginal Lands Board dispute stank, and so it did, said the member for Christchurch Central (Mr G. W. R. Palmer).

The action of the Minister of Lands (Mr V. S. Young) could not survive the modern formulation of the principle of Ministerial responsibility enunciated by a former Prime Minister, Sir Sidney Holland, in 1956 when he had said that in public administration it was important that the actions of Ministers should not only be right in themselves but they should manifestly appear to be so to the man in the street.

Mr Palmer said the Minister’s conduct had clearly failed that test. The Minister had done two things that made it wrong for him to continue in office:

First, on January 25, 1980, he had written a long letter, which he had circulated to the Marginal Lands Board, of which he was chairman. In that letter he had argued the case for a loan for his personal friends. After two pages of sustained advocacy, the Minister had asked the board to reconsider its decision and said he was confident’ that the applicants had the ability successfully to farm their property, given the opportunity, Mr Palmer said. The Minister had acted as the chief advocate of these people and, in doing so, had acted wrongly. It was not the conduct of his officers

that was held to account, but his own personal conduct, for which he must take responsiblity.

Second, said Mr Palmer, the Minister had attended the board meeting on January 29. The minutes of that meeting showed that again he had argued for the applicants, his friends, and in that, brought his influence to bear on the board. Without the intervention of the Minister, the application for a loan would have failed. The Minister’s intervention had been a substantial factor in the approval. Without his formidable advocacy the loan would not have been granted. For that reason, the minister must resign.

Housing The Minister of Housing (Mr Quigley) was suggesting that a return to 1934 policies would solve the country’s housing problems, said the member for Papanui (Mr M. K. Moore). The Minister had promised to provide 80 per cent loans, but had broken that promise. A survey by the Master Builders’ Association showed that more than 1500 people a month had made applications for new homes, but only 180 had qualified for loans because of the Minister’s policies. In its election manifesto,

the National Party nad said that it would ensure that the demands placed on housing would avoid excessive peaks and hollows, Mr Moore said. That had been a hollow promise and one that had not been kept.

The Master Builders’ Association had. said that another tragic downturn in building had been the loss to Australia of skilled and productive two-man labour-only contractors. TV costs

The member for Lyttelton (Mrs Ann Hercus) said that many people paid licence fees and expected to see more on television than reruns of old movies. She asked if the Minister of Broadcasting (Mr Templeton) knew and approved that the Broadcasting Corporation had settled libel suits by giving free advertising time? Settling a libel suit with the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) that way would be interesting. What had been the cost of transferring the television news service from Wellington to Auckland, she asked. She. estimated it had cost, directly and indirectly, the corporation at least $lOO,OOO in the present financial year, apart from the personal problems caused to many loyal staff members.