Demonstrators “Rabble”; Says Govt M.P.

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32308, 28 May 1970, Page 1

Demonstrators “Rabble”; Says Govt M.P.

(N.Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 27. The Government Chief Whip (Mr H. R. Lapwood), a former policeman, today lashed out at the “rabble of demonstrators, Communists and members of the Progressive Youth Movement who set out to antagonise the police.”

In a motion which noted with appreciation the way in which the police handled their extra responsibilities during recent visits by the United States Vice-President (Mr Spiro Agnew) and the Royal Family, Mr Lapwood

said New Zealand was extremely privileged to have such an excellent force. During Mr Agnew’s visit the country saw incidents produced by minority groups who, through their own volition or with encouragement from such outside forces as the Communists, set out to bait the police force, Mr Lapwood said. “They get young people to sign petitions about police brutality,” he said. He talked about the rabble rubbing their heels on policemen’s shins, using filthy language and generally abusing the force in an effort to get the police to do something in the heat of the moment. Mr Lapwood quoted from the Communist newspaper, “People’s Voice," in which the party secretary (Mr V. G. WilicOx) said the party had got

to know many young persons and had had assistance from them by joining their groups. Referring to publicity given to the P.Y.M., Mr Lapwood said: “Why these irresponsible types should be given such publicity I will never understand. The fact that some members of this House associate with them is also disturbing.” Controversy over police action during the visit by Mr Agnew could turn out to be a blessing in disguise, said Dr A. M. Finlay (Lab., Henderson). This could be so if the controversy led the police force to accept the importance of proper preparation, proper briefings, and proper relief from long hours on duty. During the Agnew visit the police were “overprepared and' over-exhausted; and, as

a result, they over-reacted,” Dr Finlay said. Relevant factors were the general tenseness of the situation, Mr Agnew's provocative personality, and the obvious armament carried by his bodyguard. “It has been said that the situation was aggravated by taunts and insults,” Dr Finlay said. “I do not count this as a contributory factor. The police must be trained to withstand conduct of this kind.”

Dr Finlay said self-restraint was a necessary part of police action in crowd control. So far “crowd control” was all the police had to contend with, although “it might very well come to riot control.” The police had discharged their onerous responsibilities well and honourably in the

past but, If there was even a suspicion that they at any time failed to measure up to previous high standards, there should be an investigation.

He was also glad that what seems to be an increased resort to arms by the police was the subject of an inquiry, and predicted that the attitude of the community to the police force would be subject to increasing social strains. Dr Finlay said that police actions during the Agnew visit could be said to be sub judice, because they were the subject of an investigation by the Ombudsman. But, on the basis of what he had seen and learned, he could not express the same satisfaction as had Mr Lapwood. There had been at least one instance which gave cause for complaint, said Dr Finlay. This could be explained,

but he did not think it could be excused.

Mr E. S. F. Holland (Nat., Riccarton) said that unfortunately the good humour and tolerance with which the police had handled demonstrators had been taken as a licence, and too many were now going beyond the bounds in demonstrations.

He thought the day of the “velvet glove” of the police had gone, “particularly when someone punches you on the nose.” “Sooner or later the public of New Zealand will take the matter into their own hands,” he said. “I should not like to see this happen. “I hope that demonstrations never get to the situation they are in America. This is what will happen if citizens do not accept responsibility to take some action.”