Tax reduction group presses candidates

Press, 29 October 1981, Page 1

Tax reduction group presses candidates

Candidates in the General Election are being asked to commit themselves publicly to five pledges, one of which says they will vote for a 7.5 per cent flat rate of turnover tax.

The Christchurch-based Tax Reduction Integrity Movement which plans to spend $190,000 on the national campaign, has sent the pledges to 292 candidates throughout New Zealand. Some candidates feel they are being pushed into a corner by the content of the pledges and the advertising which is proposed for the results. One party organiser described the campaign as a “threat to democracy.” Packages sent to the candidates by registered mail include glossy brochures and samples of the way results will be advertised. The candidates are told that their replies will be advertised in double and fullpage newspaper advertisements and in cards distributed in electorates before the election. If candidates do not reply to the campaign they will be listed as having signed no pledges. Candidates are asked to sign pledges saying: • They will vote for no more than a 7.5 per cent flat rate of tax to replace all other forms of tax;

• They will vote against any legislation preventing free competition; 0 They will vote against any increase in overall taxation or Government spending without the prior consent of the electorate;

. • That party loyalty will never take precedence over loyalty to the electorate; • They will never vote for any. form of compulsory association.

In addition to the preelection advertising of replies, T.R.I.M. says it will put out a regular newsletter after the election monitoring how members of Parliament in each electorate have stuck to their pledges. Several candidates, who

have received the packages in the last two days, have approached “The Press’’ worried about what they were being asked to sign. They were also concerned about the cost of the T.R.I.M. project. • The South Island organiser of the Social Credit Political League. Mr J. A. Wright, said the pledges were “extremely dangerous.” In its campaign, T.R.I.M. appeared to be spending close to the, same amount that the big' parties would spend in the final month, simply to “push one particular view.” ’ “That is a threat to democracy,” he said. He said that candidates were being bombarded with questionnaires from pressure groups. Many took a long time to answer and the questions were often “slanted.”

Candidates were expected to sign binding commitments without access to the facts they would have in Parliament, Mr Wright said.

The national co-ordinator of T.R.1.M., Mr G. N. Russell, said the organisation had raised $BO,OOO for its campaign already and had planned a $190,000 campaign. The money 'came from individuals who supported the movement and from the sale of books and posters. The group had about 2000 “hard core” supporters.

Mr Russell said the campaign was the most important thing to happen in New Zealand politics. “We are going to break this monopoly of party politics. We are going to put the voters before the party,” Mr Russell did not agree that the method of advertising the results was unfair on candidates who genuinely did not wish to commit themselves before they had the full facts. If candidates had a genuine reason for not signing the pledges it was “up to them” to get it across to voters, he said. T.R.I.M. had existed for about two years under the

name of the Tax Reduction Movement. The name had been changed about four months ago to emphasise that Government integrity started with voter, candidate, and party integrity. There was no connection with the Christchurch Integrity Centre, nor with other groups such as the League of Rights or Zenith Applied Philosophy. T.R.I.M. 'was an autonomous organisation. However, Mr Russell said that he had attended Z.A.P. courses.

He said, that the advertising of results would continue even if there was a poor response from candidates. However, it seems likely that many candidates will ignore the campaign. The secretary of the Canterbury-Westland division of the National Party, Mr G. J. Johnstone, said candidates would probably have thrown the material into the wastepaper basket. Candidates would decide for themselves whether to sign the pledges. The regional secretary of the Labour Party, Mr B. D. Arps, said the party’s guideline for candidates was that they should not reply to questionnaires. However, after seeing the material he said that a statement would probably be issued today. Mr Wright said he expected the response to the campaign would be very small, but Social Credit candidates would decide for themselves whether to reply.

He was worried that the campaign could breach sections of the Electoral Act, Mr Russell said, however, that legal ' advisers had checked it and there should be no problem. The deputy chief electoral officer, Mr B. E. Clarke, confirmed that if only one candidate replied to the pledges the advertising might be seen to come within his election expenses. Returning officers would have to decide in each case, but an interpretation of the law might be needed.