General Election

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33065, 4 November 1972, Page 14

General Election

Sir, —I like neither Mr Kirk’s down on bikies nor Mr Marshall’s down on trade unions. They are the same kind of thing. Repression in either case will only cause worse trouble, as it always does, and neither tackles the basic issue that there is something wrong with our society. A society built on selfinterest, in which we are taught to compete, not make friends, will inevitably produce protest from both the articulate and the inarticulate. I hope that both Mr Kirk and Mr Marshall will drop these planks from their platforms and propound solutions on humanitarian lines such as seem to be coming through in Mr Kirk’s speeches and some new parties. I would point out, too, that both Mr Kirk’s and Mr Marshall’s legislation looks as if it could apply equally to any other form of protest. There is no limit to where this may take us.—Yours, etc., G. C. SUGGATE. November 3, 1972.

Sir, — “Rakaiaman” is illinformed when he says that “the policies of Labour and Values are similar in almost all respects (apart from defence).” The Values Party advocates zero population growth; Labour implicity encourages population growth. While the Values Party advocates a very low level of economic growth, Labour policies aim to increase it. In housing, Values takes a fresh approach — that of developing active communities and promoting variety — while Labour’s policy is basically one of “more of the same,” thereby adding to our urban sprawl and its attendant social ills. There are many major differences in policy. What is clear, though, is that Labour (and National) policies do not line up with their claims to “increase the quality of life.” It stands to reason that if both population and industry expand unchecked then most, if not all, of our present social,

working, and natural environmental problems will be amplified, many exponentially.—Yours, etc., N. A. WILLIAMS, Campaign co-ordinator, Canterbury Values Party Branch. November 3, 1972.

Sir,—-The claim of National Party speakers that a Labour Government would be subservient to the Federation of Labour is a half-truth. The whole truth is that neither National nor Labour commands enough public support to control the F.O.L. Under either of them, strong unions will continue to grab more than their fair share of the country’s wealth. Only fundamental reforms like widening share ownership can really reduce strikes and disruptions. Both the Social Credit and Values Parties now support such reforms, but, in spite of my devoting about 100 hours of my time earlier this year to trying to get the Labour Party to include investigation of such ideas in its manifesto, the pig-headed conservatives in that party won out, and this places me and doubtless others in a voting dilemma which only a preference system of voting could alleviate.—Yours, etc., MARK D. SADLER November 3, 1972.

Sir, —The first Labour Government got New Zealand out of the biggest mess this country has ever been in. They found the money to finance and fight World War II without getting New Zealand into debt. Yet Mr Marshall has the audacity to state that you cannot trust Labour. Let me remind Mr Marshall when Labour have been the Government, or in opposition, they tell the truth and do not break promises. In my long lifetime it has always been Tory Governments that have got New Zealand into a mess, and brought hardship to the mass of the people.— Yours, etc., FLEMING ROSS MILLER November 3, 1972.

Sir, — “Rakaiaman” says that the Values Party will split the vote to the detriment of Labour. In weighing up the pros and cons of this, one must look beyond the next three years. New Zealand is busily making the tragi: mistakes already made by so many developed countries. Our major parties seem unprepared even to see these mistakes. The Values Party has one especially different policy: zero population growth. By taking action now we would round out of our upward spiral with a population of nearly 5,000,000 and some depletion of environment. If we do not take action, ultimately it will be forced upon us, when, in the name of “progress,” New Zealand has been overcrowded and despoiled beyond recognition. Let us get back some of our earlier idealism. A high Values poll will at least force the major parties to take notice. — Yours, etc., KATHLEEN GUY-DINGNIS. November 3, 1972.

Sir, —“Rakaiaman” shows a basic denial of our electoral democracy by negating the attitude of people by policy and ideal for other than the two main parties. He suggests that we should forever maintain the National-Labour combine in power. Would he have made the same reflection some years ago when Labour was very much a minor group and splitting votes from the major liberal groups? He also appears completely uninformed on the distinctive aspects of the Values Party, their aim being the furthering of the necessary environmental and humanist revolution, as farreaching as the industrial revolution that led to so many of the materialist and chau-vinist-generated problems of our day.—Yours, etc., T.M.C. November 3, 1972.

Sir, —The central issue of the election should now be clear to all: does the country support National in its successful drive to reduce the terrible rate of inflation from which New Zealand has suffered or do we wish to sup-

port the Labour Party and the Federation of Labour who wish to throw out the Remuneration Authority and return to the wage-price spiral? In the last three years average wages have risen 45 per cent and the cost of living 25 per cent. There are some simple people about who still cannot see that the main factor in the increased cost of living is excessive wage increases. These same people lead our Federation of Labour; so to learn that the Labour Party and the federation have agreed on this policy is a frightening thought for the elderly and the wage and salary earners alike.— Yours, etc., AGRA. November 3, 1972.

Sir,—You kindly printed a letter from me in which I expressed concern at the effect of the Values Party on the General Election results. Since writing that letter I attended Mr Kirk’s election address in the Christchurch Town Hall, where I, in company with some 1500 other citizens, suffered a spate of inane interjections and interruptions from a group of untidy individuals calling themselves Values Party people. If this infantile exhibition is to be typcal of the Values Party, then the earlier fears I expressed for the Labour candidates are groundless. As Mr Alex Clark, Labour candidate for Rakaia, has said, a vote for the Values Party is simply a wasted vote. —Yours, etc., RAKAIAMAN. November 3, 1972.