Discusión

to tell the Bank what policy it should be carrying out, the Government would not be

interfering in the day to day business of the Bank. For the Labour Opposition,

enhanced central bank independence represented an abrogation of the responsibilities

of Government. Labour Member of Parliament Bob Tizard claimed that,

10 _{Hawke notes that in 1 962 the Bank itself had prepared a draft Bill which would have required the bank}

to give effect to a resolution of Parliament or to written Ministerial direction on matters of monetary policy ( 1 973: 75). However that draft was not proceeded with. Subsequently, in discussions between Treasury and the Reserve bank a compromise position was reached between the bank's desire for independence on matters other than policy, and Treasury's desire to retain a Ministerial right of intervention in the bank's functions or business in general (Hawke, 1 973: 75).

"The way in which the Government influences the bank is to b e altered and substantially weakened ... the previous requirement was that the bank was to give effect to Government policy now we find that it is only to have regard to

'Government policy. Concern on this side of the House is expressed mainly

around this point of the relationship between the Government, which must have primarily he responsibility of directing the country's economy, and the bank, which through this Bill and existing legislation is the main means whereby that policy is carried into effect ...

Other provisions indicate that the bank may well be made more independent. If this is Government policy we would like to know just what it intends to do and what it hopes to achieve by it, because we believe that the Government has a primary responsibility for managing the country's economy, and we believe that many of the provisions in the Bill weaken the means by which the Government can make that control effective. We have already seen this Government, by deliberate acts of policy, reduce its opportunity for managing the economy . . . here we find, as a corollary to Government policy, a Bill which weakens the way in which the Government may indicate its wishes and have them carried into effect by the Reserve Bank" (NZPD,

1964: 3670-3672).

The Third Labour Government was elected to Office in

1972.

In

July

1973

the Government introduced a Bill to amend the

1964

legislation. Minister of Finance Bill Rowling advised the House that,

" ... the Bill reaffirms the sovereign right of the crown to control currency and credit for the purpose of maintaining a stable value for money ... The implementation of the provisions of the Bill will increase the ability of the Government, through the Reserve Bank, to pursue its social and economic objectives and ensure the continuing full employment of labour and other resources ... " (NZPD,

1973: 2473).

The new charter for the bank elevated the importance of the employment objective by requiring the Bank to pursue

full

employment. The charter and the Act was now to read:

"the maintenance and promotion of economic and social welfare in New Zealand, having regard to the desirability of promoting the highest level of production and trade and full employment and of maintaining a stable internal price level" (cited in Dalziel,

1993: 84,

emphasis added).

But the Government made a number of additional changes impacting on the governance and management of the Bank. The Act was amended to provide that one or more of the directors of the Bank was to have commercial or industrial experience, and also to enlarge the executive committee of the Bank board. Whereas the

1964

Act provided that the executive committee would comprise the Governor, Deputy Governor and not less than one director chosen by the Board, the amendment increased the committee by the addition of the Secretary of the Treasury, and one other director to be designated by the Bank. However the Act was also to provide that if any one director of the

Reserve Bank was at the same time a director of the Bank of New Zealand, that person would be automatically appointed to the executive committee.

This last change was justified on the grounds that a concurrent appointment to both boards would ensure that the Minister was in a position to co-ordinate advice from the two most important financial institutions in the country. It was this change that attracted the most attention from Opposition members, and in particular from the Opposition's Finance Spokesman, Robert Muldoon. And yet concerns raised at the supposed dangers attendant upon the appointment of a "Minister's man" to the boards of the Reserve Bank and the BNZ, were not a reflection of any desire on the part of the National Party that the Bank become more independent of Government.

Speaking in the debate National Party Finance spokesman and former Minister of Finance appeared to suggest that, if anything, the Bank was to become more, not less independent as a result of the passage of the

1973

legislation:

"I see in the Bill that the Reserve Bank is being given the right to fix certain interest rates, principally those on the trading banks, and I want the Minister to tell the House and the country when he replies whether in fact that will be so or whether it will do it on the direction of the Government, as is the case a t present. This is a very important matter because I know the Reserve Bank's views on interest rate policy. Its views are different from mine, and they were different throughout the whole of the time I was Minister of Finance. The Reserve Bank wanted to use the interest rate as an economic weapon, but when I was Minister of Finance, and during the whole of the time of the National Government, we refused to allow it to do so because we believed in a low interest rate policy - not a high interest rate policy which puts up interest rates to inhibit economic activity. If the Minister genuinely and sincerely wishes to step out of this responsibility and allow the Reserve Bank to fix interest rates and to use them as an economic corrective, we will then have the

high

interest rates which obtain in other parts of world. During the last

6

or

7

years interest rates in New Zealand have been

3

percent,

4

percent, and even

5

percent below the equivalent rate of other countries. Is this what the Bill does?

... Is the new Labour Government handing this over to the Reserve Bank in accordance with its policy or will it break its election promise and keep control at Government level, as I believe it should?" (NZPD,

1973: 2479).

In 1989

the Fourth Labour Government was to pass the Reserve Bank Act. But Muldoon's contribution to the

1973

debate suggests that the adoption of policies somewhat antithetical to the orthodox prescriptions of left and of right party governments had occurred well in advance of the election of the Fourth Labour Government - indeed, in part, the rationale for the

1989

legislation may be found in the tendency to 'regulatory excess' on the part of Prime Minister Muldoon and the National Party governments over the period from

1975

to

1984.

While in his contribution to the

1964 debate Muldoon justified the National Party Government's amendments on the

In document TítuloEficacia de incluir ejercicios preventivos en el calentamiento para ayudar a reducir lesiones en taekwondo (página 31-34)