A ‘campaign of distortion’

Press, 3 August 1981, Page 2

A ‘campaign of distortion’

From

BRIAR WHITEHEAD

Left-wing churchmen, some of them members of the National Council of Churches, were participating, for some devious political reason, in a campaign of distortion and fear, the member of Parliament for Ashburton, and Under-Secretary of Agriculture (Mr Talbot) said in the House last week.

“Many of the extremists who have sucked thousands of genuine New Zealanders into unlawful protests are in the churches.” he said. “They are being aided and. abetted by the Opposition.”

The Christian action week publication, “Issues, 1971,” was a Marxist mouthpiece within the church, Mr Talbot said.

“Church groups getting into that type of campaign are not only divisive, but also totally unchristian, and can only reduce the credibility of the role of churchmen.”

Mr Talbot appealed to “genuine Christian people" who were concerned about

extremists in the churches, to isolate themselves from them for the good of democracy in New Zealand. What price? Mr M. A. Connelly (Lab., Yaldhurst) said that if New Zealand withdrew from the Gleneagles Agreement there was an implication a move to leave the Commonwealth might follow. This might be seen to align New Zealand with South Africa.

On Springbok tour protests, Mr Connelly, said the Labour Party would have given leadership at the moral level by calling off the tour before it arrived. Now it was here, protests had to be within the law, not to the edge of it. “It was irresponsible for anyone to organise a protest or counter-protest, and then disclaim responsibility for the actions of those participating. The Government would have its tour, Mr Connelly said. “But at what price?”

“There need be only one irresponsible action for the whole matter to get out of hand.” The possibility of violence was heightened by the mood of violence in Britain.

Fertiliser costs Fertiliser costs had risen from $25 a tonne when the Labour Party was in office to $115.90 today, said Sir Basil Arthur (Lab., Timaru). In the last five years the ex-works price of fertiliser had risen by 363 per cent. How could farmers increase production when they could not afford to apply fertiliser? This year fertiliser sales had dropped by 14.8 per cent. The average applied cost, according to the “Agricultural Economist,” had risen by 45 per cent, and in the full year the volume sold would drop by about 16 per cent. The fertiliser price rose the day after the Budget, but was not mentioned in the Budget. Nor was there any mention of a petrol price rise

— another big cost factor for farmers.

The Budget allowed only $500,000 for the payment of supplementary minimum prices. Either the Government had secret information, to which producer boards were not privy about future price increases or it planned a major devaluation or the taxpayer would have to pay the difference. Budget ‘charade’ The Budget and the Budget debate had become something of a charade, said Mr G. W. R. Palmer (Lab., Christchurch Central). “Like so many other Parliamentary procedures it should either be cleaned up or abolished."

Mr Palmer spelled out reforms that should be made.

® The Budget should set out in some detail exactly where the Government was taking the economy. At present it was bland and nonspecific, minimising the chances of effective criticism in the Budget debate. The

new policy measures announced in the Budget should be justified by a sensible economic analysis in the Budget statement. © It should not only show money paid in appropriations, but also amounts spent in form of tax rebates,, deductions and subsidies. The

Planning Council estimated that more than $3OO million was paid in tax subsidies.

© It should show levels of fiscal drag. If people were to be taxed at higher rates at the end of the year than at the beginning, the Budget should show it.

® The real targets of estimates expenditure should be identified. At present they were lost behind the minutae of figures. Better Government forward planning would help.

© House select committees should be given more power. Committee minority reports should be allowed, and committees allowed to pursue their own investigations. This would allow probing in depth of some Government strate-

gies. ® The Public accounts should accord with modern accounting practice. They were not really intelligible because they were unlike any other set of accounts. For example, no information was given reminding the department manager of resources tied up in capital assets. © Accountability to Parliament should be improved. Estimates and departmental reports did not contain enough information on the aims of Government programmes, goals achieved, and full costs involved. Last year the Government managed $14,400 million, but there were inadequate checks on “where it was going, and how it was being spent," Mr Palmer said. A strengthened Parliamentary public expenditure committee would improve the House’s scrutiny of Government expenditure. ® The amount of money spent on Qangos ‘(statutory bodies) should be itemised.