COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL FIGHT FOR MINOR PLACINGS IS LIKELY TO BE TENSE

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33066, 6 November 1972, Page 16

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL FIGHT FOR MINOR PLACINGS IS LIKELY TO BE TENSE

( By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY)

WELLINGTON, November s.—lt has been a remarkable week. For 450 men and women, representing 19 parties (some of which have only one candidate) the die is cast. What is perhaps more important, the major parties have tabled their manifestos, and their leaders have made their initial appeals to the public. Furthermore, the “main” party leaders (and this seems to be a listing determined by the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation) Lave made their televised appeals to the public. The leaders of the National, Labour and Social Credit parties received equal time (though not, perhaps, equal exposure), and the Values Party leader was given almost equal time in a different exposure pattern.

Just how much this handling will affect the issue is yet unclear, but subsequent happenings suggest that the battle between Social Credit and Values for the minor placing could be as dramatic as that between Messrs Marshall and Kirk for the main prize.

It now appears that there are two contenders for the young, undecided voter who is tired of the “Establishment” (whatever that means). It is apparent, however, that there is such a voter, in the 20-25-year-old class, who is actively seeking to be convinced —and that neither major party has made a notable effort to recruit his sympathies. Attractive leaders The Values Party started well, possibly because of the unexpectedly sincere appearance of a young man in the gerson of its leader (Mr A. J. runt) whose voice was that of many of the young protesters. At that stage, Values had 15 candidates, with an announced possibility of 10 more. When nominations closed, however, there were 42 Values candidates.

Possibly, even more significant has been the appeal of the youthful-looking Social Credit leader (Mr B. C. Beetham). He has a modern appearance—which I am told is not an affectation—and coupled with it is the unruffled, academic manner which has been formed through years of lecturing secondary-school and university students. The success of these two widely-differing characters, however, cannot blind us to the fact that leaders cannot win elections single-handed. It is now up to Social Credit’s 87 candidates and the Values Party’s 42 to make their individual impressions, in an endeavour to secure votes which would otherwise go almost inevitably to the main parties. In this, it is also necessary to remember that the main parties are still National and Labour, one of which will finish second. And both are making a tremendous effort in the persons of their leaders. Kirk ahead?

There is considerable man-in-street opinion that the new, mobile image of the Labour leader (Mr Kirk) has proved more effective than the mild senior-statesman appearance of the Prime Minister (Mr Marshall). Mr Kirk is working harder than in 1969 (though the effort he put out then was considerable). He looks better, has developed considerable competence in platform repartee, and generally is closer to his audiences than before. Mr Marshall is essentially a “straight man,” not happy with interjectors. His strength may well lie in his backing-up by an experienced team. So far Mr Kirk seems to have been carrying the main load himself—and it may be worth remembering that it takes up to 18 men to form a Cabinet. Mr Kirk may well have picked a winner in his suggestion that the motorcycles of gangs bent on violence should be impounded by the police, or at least that the police should have that power. To Mr Marshall’s protest that this would bring tyranny into the country, Mr Kirk produced a ready answer. This was simply that the “tyranny” was already here —applied to offences against statutes and regulations, but not to offences against the person. He gave a list of offences for which authorities could seize cars, boats and a long list of other possessions. A surprising number of people are unhappy about the Government’s attitude towards the “bikie” gangs, and would accept the force of Mr Kirk's argument. Mr Kirk was not lost for an answer when Mr Marshall claimed last week that implementation of Labour promises as outlined in the manifesto would cost the country $600,000,000. Firstly, he queried the Government’s right to have the Treasury working on what was so obviously election material. “Is it part of the Treasury’s job to do the

National Party’s homework?” he asked his audience in Blenheim on Thursday night. He denied that the Labour [plan would cost "anything like that”—though he would [not give a figure. But in reply [he said that what Mr Marshall was trying to do was deflect attention from the fact that his party had collected $1,475,000,000 more in taxation in the last three years than was warranted. Heavy padding Despite the tremendous wordages involved in the manifestos of the National and Labour Parties, the Social Credit candidates tend to get a burst of applause when they tell audiences “There’s no difference.” Actually, a close examination reveals many differences —and many examples, notably in the Labour manifesto. Of heavy verbal padding. This is particularly noticeable in the Labour policy on International Affairs, which contains little apart from virtuous hopes and protestations of good intentions. In its earlier Defence policy, issued by Labour’s Defence spokesman (Mr A. J. Faulkner), no mention was made of New Zealand’s international commitments. Possibly this is better expressed under the heading of Inter-

national Affairs—but the two are inseparable. Under International Affairs one would expect a clear statement about relationships with United Nations. The Labour manifesto gives us a highsounding waffle about cooperation. The Labour manifesto suggests a Government failure in promoting regional cooperation in Asia and the Pacific. This does seem hard to justify, particularly by a party which is advocating a general withdrawal, except in

I "peace-keeping and construeI five roles.’ ' After all this, it is surprising to learn that Labour intends to maintain the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty. This, of i course, binds us to policies [followed by Australia and the I United States. In almost the same breath Labour pledges the withdrawal of the A.N.Z.U.K. force from Singapore. Of course, there is no answer to the question: Is Labour in favour of the FivePower Defence arrangement? This is almost in the category of "Innocents Abroad.” A Labour Government, on coming to office, would speedily discover on consulting the active members of S.E.A.T.O. that the idea of phasing out our militap’ commitment involved in the Manila Treaty is not acceptable.

Labour’s suggestion for the establishment of a Pacific Council representing parliaments in the Pacific Basin similarly lacks definition. It is not backed up by a detailed, well-thought-out policy. There is also the fact that for the past 10 years National Party Governments have been working towards this goal through regional co-operation. Labour* flat statement that a Labour Government will recognise the People’s Republic of China entails a blissful non-recognition of the facts. The People’s Republic has laid down its requirement for “complete recognition”—and this is the complete rejection of Taiwan. It is too easy to mention a solution without dealing with the problem. This is only one example of the fact that if all the “waffle” were removed from Labour’s fine, red-bound, quarto 50-page volume, it would be a very slim little brochure indeed.