Resistance to change ‘could destabilise’

Press, 3 June 1981, Page 3

Resistance to change ‘could destabilise’

PA Wellington The difficulty that many people have in coping with change was advanced by Mr G. W. F. ’Thompson (NatHorowhenua) last evening as a main reason for what he called “the state of political uncertainty with a potential for destabilisation of the political arena.” Moving the Address-in-Reply to the Speech from the Throne in Parliament last evening. Mr Thompson said many people had difficulty in facing up to new directions and fresh challenges. “The need for change and the inevitability of its impact on ever}' New Zealander has been referred to time and time again for more than 10 years, but only very recently has there been a realisation that change is not just something affecting the other person. It affects everyone,” he said.

“Unfortunately, a common reaction to accelerating change is to resist, object and seek simplistic solutions and soft options. It is also manifested in a scepticism about strategies to cope with change.” Mr Thompson said; he believed the Government was making significant progress with its strategies and that scepticism was undeserved. The Government's task was to set the right direction that economic and social change dictated. It had done this in adopting a strategy of growth through exports. Another task it had was to ensure that people understood the nature of these directions so that confidence was generated in the value of the changes for every individual. “This is the difficult but achievable goal of leadership — to demonstrate how the community’s aspirations ..can be : achieyed through the path we have taken for the future.” v S ; - ' ' ■ Mr Thompson dealt at length with the way in which people in his constituency were doping with the need for. change arid said risks were being taken within it, but “the attitude is positive and confidence is being expressed in the future.” Mr Thompson urged Cabinet Ministers to watch carefully . the progress in the

restructuring of the textile industry. ”, . The industries development commission textile plan covered a 10-year term from 1976 to 1986 and provided for a review of progress and adjustments by June. 1982. or earlier. “This creates uncertainty as the review time has been effectively accelerated forward »from the mid-point of the plan because it was only implemented last year,” he said. “Many investment decisions and risks have been taken and a longer period should be allowed for the industry, to settle down before review. “If this was agreed to, a measure of uncertainty which does exist about this issue would dissipate.’'

Mr Thompson said he would press for a longer peri6d. before interference with the industry or an assurance that any review of tariffs or protection would not lead to any decision which would disadvantage the position of New Zealand industries. He said a “monstrous canard” was being perpetrated by the opposition parties in saying that the Government had little interest in small business and was only concentrating on large-scale projects. “That is completely false and it is notable that we are the only party to have introduced programmes specifically aimed at assisting small business.” Mr Thompson said the Government had a responsibility to see that commercial practices remained fair so that competition could thrive. It was working on the recommendations of a working party on consumer legislation relating to selling practices. A feature of this was emphasis on self-regula-tion by business codes of practice to apply in each sector. “We are now completing detailed consideration of the Credit Contracts Bill which removes licensing for money lenders and replaces this red tape with largely self-regula-tory practices to which all suppliers of credit must conform. but' with sanctions available in the courts upon the complaint of an agrieved person.”

Seconding Mr Thompson’s motion, the Government member for Hunua, Mr W. R. Peters, said it was essential New Zealand adopted modern technology if it was to remain competitive and be assured a secure economic future. To reject today’s technological development, he said, would mean New Zealand would “sink into the register of Third World nations with a worsening Third World standard of living.” New Zealand was adapting to change and a new technological society was emerging. But. he said, there were many voices raised against change, “as if there were some alternative, some societal cocoon in which three million could gain sanctuary from the real world. “These voices are almost

invariably raised from a position of privilege — propped up on the shoulders of men and women working for .a better standard of living. Mr Peters decried the debate on the reduction of the 40-hour working week, which was a. “war of words, a nonsense. It is drivel and trumpery.” “Permanent jobs are created by profits. Profits are created by a competitive level of productivity and efficiency,” he said. If this productivity level can be improved with longer but fewer shifts and less days at work, what do questions on the 40hour week, the 35-hour week, or even the 30-hour’ week, matter?

If greater productivity results from a woman or a man working three 10-hour shifts (a total of 30 hours), all parties will benefit. The worker will have two extra days with his or her family, save the travelling expenses of two return trips to and from work, and by private arrangements care three days a week for the children of a co-worker on another shift.” • . The Federation of Labour’s trade ban with Chile had been imposed because of an “edict” from the Kremlin, said Mr W. B. Peters. ' “The people of New Zealand need to know that a potential of millions of- dollars of trade and thousands of - jobs is being forfeited i each year because pf" the ban.” he said. r” .