What the M.P.s were saying Merger start of take-over of N.Z.-Mrs Kerens

Press, 10 November 1980, Page 2

What the M.P.s were saying Merger start of take-over of N.Z.-Mrs Kerens

The Fletcher-Challenge-Tasman merger raised the spectre of “take-over New Zealand” Mrs Ann Hercus (Lab., Lyttelton) told Parliament last week. The Government whinged about industrial muscle but approved dominating commercial muscle, she said. The merger concentrated extraordinary powers in the hands of a few.

“This super-giant could have an over-all cash surplus each year of between $5O million and $6O million,” she said. “In its first year it could take over Motor Holdings, • Transport Nelson, Ltd, Healings, Alcan, New Zealand News, Canterbury Timber, Lane Walker Rudkin, Donaghy's, and Independent Newspapers. “The next year it could try for Ballins, New Zealand Refining, Henderson and Pollard, Hallensteins, P.D.L., Andrews and Beaven and Mount Cook.

‘Ron Trotter, the chairman of Challenge Corporation, said the merger would help eliminate conflict in the market place; that’s a cute way of saying eliminate competition.”

Mrs Hercus said that the Government stood condemned for removing from, the Minister of Trade and Industry power to have mergers of this size publicly examined by the Commerce Commission. But the Minister still had powers to call for a monopoly inquiry, and should do so under section 16 of the Commerce Act.

The last four years and a half of National Government had seen a dramatic acceleration in mergers and takeovers. New Zealand had one of the highest penetrations of multi-nationals of any Western economy. The National Party had clearly abandoned all pretext of being a party committed to free enterprise. It had signalled to every small and medium business and to every farmer: “Too bad mate. The big boys will get the resources, and have all the geographic and product monopolies.”

Air N.Z.

I Mrs Hercus said that the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) had with “a great deal of arrogance” insisted again on by-passing Parliament. The Finance Bill, introduced [by the Minister of Finance (Mr Muldoon) was an attempt to validate an illegal payment of $l6 million for shares in Air New Zealand. Mr Muldoon should have sought the legislative authority of the House at that time and not boxed on, demonstrating his arrogance and asking the House to validate the move months afterwards.

Mr Muldoon 'had said that the payment was to improve the debt equity ratio of Air New Zealand but the $l6 million injection of capital more accurately matched the losses of the airline this year. It was a secret bailout. Music levy Mrs Hercus said that music teachers who had paid increased annual registration fees to the Music Teachers’ Registration Board this year would have been quite within their rights to have refused to pay. ■ The regulations under which the board had increased its fees had not come into force until July 17. But the board had claimed $7 more in each fee since January, 1980. Parliament should not (under the Finance Bill) bail out a board which had acted outside the law in contravention of the rights of music teachers. Privileges hearing Mr G. W. R. Palmer (Lab., Christchurch Central) said that the procedures of the House had forced Government members on the Privileges Committee to be judges in their own cause,. It was time that the committee was chaired by an independent chairman: the Chief Ombudsman. This would give members of Parliament and those outside the House greater faith in the findings of a committee

[composed of politicians. | Although numbers had, (prevailed on the committee ! jit would require more credible evidence to carry their argument. outside . the House. i “I suggest that the public! is sceptical in the extreme' about the findings and num-1 bers will not prevail there,”} said Mr Palmer. Government members on the committee would have found it difficult to divorce themselves from the consequences for the National Party of a by-election in Mr Maclntyre’s electorate. The hearing r.lso showed a defect in Standing Orders, which prohibited the writing and reporting to the House of minority reports. The MacIntyre hearing was one of a class of cases in which such a procedure was necessary. Compensation bill Mr Palmer said that a new clause in the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill which would allow the Accident Compensation Corporation to refuse to make payment where it suspected that an injury had been suffered in the course of criminal conduct could not be tolerated. “This section is an outrage,” he said. “It is bureaucratic determination of criminal fault. It can be done before any conviction, before any trial, before anything . . A member of the legal profession should be ashamed to produce a bill containing that section.” Mr Palmer said that one of the callous provisions in the bill would remove two weeks income from non-work-related accident cases. After two weeks with no income some people would be on the edge of the breadline. A clause insisting that injured people paid towards the cost of the first two visits to doctors would deflect floods of people to hospital casualty departments for free treatment. Mr D. L. Kidd (Nat., Marlborough) said that New Zealand’s accident-compensation scheme was internationally unique. There were no preceedents to follow. The com-

[inissioners had been feeling L their way and there had ;} understandably been admin- ■ listrative difficulties. The r Government had come to the », point where a review was [necessary. An investigation by Sir} >'Arnold Nordmeyer had -'shown that there had been 'lan enormous increase (250 (per cent) in accidents in in-, i dustry after the advent of ; accident compensation. > “These places have not be- • come two and a half times I more dangerous since acci- ■ dent compensation was introduced,” said Mr Kidd. i Compensation itself could be! , the only factor. ; The compensation system} > had moved from one of fault . to irresponsibility. The ex-( i tension of employer income! i payments from one week to! two had reinforced employer} safety responsibilities. The cost of injuries in the; freezing industry was double t the amount of levies, int eluding the cost of loss of t production and overmanning ! to make-up the labour loss. : Customs powers Mrs Hercus sa\d that the Customs Amendment (No. 2) Bill would give power of entry to Customs officers to property for any purpose ’ without a warrant of any kind in spite of statements ( in the National Party mani- ’ festo that the party would ’ seek to limit the prolifera- ? tion of these powers. I The provision was based ion one case only relating to ' officers’ abilities to inspect , Customs returns.

The bill would also appear to give honorary officers the full powers of ordinary Customs officers.

Prices Mrs Mary Batchelor (Lab., Avon); said Government members were • anxious to stay off the issue of price increases but housewives could no longer afford electricity, butter, . milk, meat, bread, and other basic commodities although they were not in short supply.

The Government’s response had been to increase interest rates and taxes and to slash subsidies.