What the M.P.s were saying Transport reform needed

Press, 31 October 1983, Page 2

What the M.P.s were saying Transport reform needed

Parliamentary reporter The Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association estimated that in the absence of transport law reform 10,500 jobs would be lost in the South Island, said Miss Ruth Richardson (Nat., Selwyn). The association estimated that 3500 manufacturing jobs would be lost immediately without the reforms, and for every job lost two would disappear in service industries. Miss Richardson said the Government was not prepared to risk the jobs of people in centres that were penalised by inefficient transport systems.

“The Transport Amendment (No. 5) Bill is the charter for competitive efficiency in our transport modes,” she said.

Interest rates Interest rates were still at the same levels as they were three months ago, said Mrs Ann Hercus (Lab., Lyttelton). This was in spite of the threats and promises of the Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon. “Why is that? It is because the Prime Minister does not seem to understand a basic economic fact — interest rates are determined by inflationary expectations, not current inflation,” she said. Adoption bill New adoption legislation should apply only to adoptions that occur after it was passed, said Mrs Mary Batchelor (Lab., Avon). Women of previous generations had often surrendered their children for

adoption in secrecy and in sorrow because of the harsh, intolerant attitude of society to illegitimate children. Mrs Batchelor urged members of Parliament to consider what the provisions of the Adult Adoption Information Bill would mean to women of those generations. Retirement The Minister of Education, Mr Wellington, intended to put the skids under . teachers who had planned to retire at 65, said Mr T. K. Burke (Lab., West Coast). Provisions of the Education Amendment Bill would allow the forced retirement of techers at 50 if they failed a subjective competence test.

“One wonders, looking across at the Government

front bench, how the Government would fare if that rule applied there,” he said. Safeguards New Zealand’s Parliament had fewer safeguards against the use and abuse of regulations than any other Westminster-style Parliament, said Mr G. W. R. Palmer (Lab., Christchurch Central). He welcomed the establishment of a specialist regulation review committee to examine regulations, but said it was long overdue. “It is a forward step, and because of that it must be supported,” he said. “We live, in a time when the Government has regimented the economy by the use of regulations to an extent that is unprecendented except in times of war.”