General Election

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33067, 7 November 1972, Page 18

General Election

Sir, —Mr Muldoon’s attack on the “ideology which negates human personality—and which brings the individual down to the level of an animal or an inanimate part of a machine” was indeed placed neatly in the middle of a typical front page, in which “The Press” reports on Monday the ups and downs of our freedom-loving society: "Nine arrested in Parliament grounds.” “U.S. investment in N.Z. rises.” “Stamp Syndicate are $200,000 richer since Saturday afternoon.” “Quick work by police.” “Police arrest bikies.” “Shot soldier dies.” It make me wonder whether it is worth while to support Mr Muldoon’s version of individual freedom. As for me, I would not. I visited the People’s Republic of China some months ago. I saw what Mr Muldoon calls ignorantly

■■aown to tne level ot an animal.” Never have I seen a more thoughtful, unselfish people, possessing the highest of ideals in which mankind can truly find freedom. —Yours, etc., B. WOHLERT. November 6, 1972. Sir, —As a guest attending the final reunion of the New Zealand Rifle Brigade Association, Mr Muldoon took advantage of his position to deliver a political speech, a tirade against those who are not in agreement with his defence policy. “Communists, traitors, animals and inanimate machines, victims of an ideology that negates human personality.” We have heard this sort of inflammatory speech many times before and are getting fed to the eyes with such crass ignorance. I use the word inflammatory deliberately, for each criticism of those who disagree is worse than the policy of demonstrations pursued by those whom he condemns, and adds fuel to the already fierce fire of conflicting views. Before Mr Muldoon again commits himself, a study of the basic measuring of communism in relation to the history of preCommunist Russia and China might tone down his violent denunciations. Both democracy and communism are ideologies with but one basic principle, the welfare of peoples, but approached by widely divergent paths.— Yours, etc., R. J. GLEN. November 6, 1972.

Sir, —Strange that Mr Muldoon can so aptly express what I feel about “Muldoonism” itself, or about wargeared monopoly capitalism operating indirectly in New Zealand from its American power-base. The “engulfing” techno-electronic tide of dollar materialism “negates human personality . . . brings the individual down to the level of an animal or an inanimate part of a machine.” While not stooping to the equally wild, counter-accusa-tion that Mr Muldoon is the real “traitor to his country,” I see him as traitor to the nationalism his label implies. Like a drunk man fearing pink elephants instead of the approaching steamroller, we are distracted by distant, disinterested, or minor enemies while staggering onwards to our fate as a United States satellite. Soon, thanks to “Muldoonism,” only the wealthy foreigner or person backed by foreign capital will have any room to manoeuvre or engage in “free enterprise.”—Yours, etc., B. P. LILBURN. November 6, 1972. Sir, — Population growth generates all social problems. Providing more and more facilities which just keep pace with an ever-increasing population is an ‘inefficient use of increasing productivity. The surplus wealth of a stable population could be used to improve the quality of life. Although beyond control overseas, over-population in New Zealand can be combated, and it must. In our sophisticated splendour, we think we are above the natural law which self-limits an excessive population. We are not, as Asia will learn within a century. However, with a warlike effort for survival, we can act in time. Let no ethics, no partisan interests, no laws of fewer men, deter us. Great discipline must be exercised, but I value continuing life, and so I value a political party with this object. If the Values Party 7 can ally courage with responsibility, it has my vote.—Yours, etc., M. L. TULETT. November 4, 1972.

Sir, — Certain elements within the National Party have begun a slur campaign

against the Values Party. After reading both of “Rakaiaman’s” letters (in reference to the Values Party affecting the electoral chances of Labour, and to some of its members disrupting Mr Kirk’s Town Hall meeting last Wednesday), I cannot but wonder whether or not similar tactics are not also emanating from the Labour Party. In answer to “Rakaiaman,” first: if Labour can show itself to be a real and better alternative to the National Government, then Labour need not fear the Values Party. And second:

at Mr Kirk’s meeting last Wednesday, there were Young Nationals and a few individual interjectors, as well as the group of young people disillusioned with Labour that “Rakaiaman” refers to. As one of that group and as a member of the Values Party, I can categorically state that no member of that “group of untidy individuals” other than myself was or is a member of the Values Party. Thus, I ask “Rakaiaman”: from where did he get his libellous misinformation?— Yours, etc., G. B. JACKSON. November 5, 1972.

Sir, —Part of Social Credit’s industrial relations policy is to establish a margin of 33 1-3 per cent between the rates of pay of skilled and unskilled. Such a wide margin would create a new poor group. If the adjustment were made by raising the wages of the skilled, employing capitalists would raise prices to recover this cost. This would mean that the unskilled would have to pay more for commodities with lower wages. At present unskilled work is least wanted because it is generally more boring and onerous and carries less social approval than skilled work. Because he is prepared to tolerate such stultifying work while others take the plum jobs, the labourer is worthy of just the same wage as the skilled worker. Where would we be without the street cleaners, rubbish collectors and more or less unskilled factory process workers?—Yours, etc., EDWARD W. HICKS. November 5, 1972.

Sir, —Whether fortuitously or deliberately, the inspired juxtaposition, on yesterday’s front page, of the reports of Mr Muldoon’s remarks to the New Zealand Rifle Brigade Association and the rise of United States investment in New Zealand by 12| per cent in 1971, brilliantly presents the opportunity to see who really deserves the label, “traitors to their country.” The Government’s ready complaisance to facilitate the economic penetration of New Zealand by United States (and other overseas) capital opens the prospect of the stealthy filching of our sovereign independence. There are more insidiously subtle ways of subverting a country’s freedom than military conquest. Wastefully extravagant defence expenditure is no guarantee that this country’s “continued freedom,” in Mr Muldoon’s phrase, will, “not be destroyed while we sleep.” Mr Muldoon’s resurrection in the 1970 s of McCarthyite methods of political intimidation to silence critics of the Government’s defence expenditure exposes his pitiful political bankruptcy.—Yours, etc., M.C.H. November 6, 1972.

Sir, —I would like to know where Mr Kirk got his figures from for doctors’ charges. I am a universal superannuitant and have been attending a doctor regularly for some time. Until fairly recently the charge was 70c if I remember rightly. I now pay $l.OO per visit.—Yours, etc. FACTS PLEASE. November 5, 1972.

Sir, —The calculations of his staff, said Mr Muldoon last night in the television news service, prove that Labour’s proposals for increased social welfare benefits can be met only by increased taxation. On July 24 he told the Society of Accountants that a 5 per cent devaluation of the pound would benefit “our outflow of payments to Britain in the ' form of invisibles.” One large item in this outflow is the annual interest on all those Government loans quoted on the London Stock Exchange. A Labour Government could use the dollars made from the devaluation of the pound in regard to interest payments for increased benefits. The pound has floated down further than a 5 per cent devaluation.—Yours, etc., A. B. CEDARIAN. November 4, 1972.

Sir, — “Rakaiaman” attempts, in one sweeping generalisation, to equate the conservative, vote-seeking policies of Labour with the farseeing social and environ-

i mental improvement policies I of the Values Party. ApparI ently unsatisfied with this, he I then criticises a minority group of “Values Party people” for making allegedly “inane” interjections. Yet he did not so vehemently object to the Labour supporters who equally senselessly interjected at Mr Marshall’s opening election address. Finally, he enforces Mr Alex Clark’s suggestion that a vote for the Values Party is a vote wasted. May I suggest that a vote for the Values Party is far from wasted, but rather that a high vote count for the Values Party, even if it does not assume a seat for their candidate, will at least show the major parties that there is strong public feeling for the Values Party policy, and maybe cause the eventual elected Government to commence an objective of zero population growth, and improvement of environmental conditions? —Yours, etc., ADNAP. November 4, 1972. Sir, —The person who said that politicians are as funny as comedians certainly knew what he was talking about. Mr Muldoon’s claims that “subversive elements” in New Zealand are financed from Russia and China are hilarious, though I suppose some people vote according to their candidate’s sense of humour. —Yours, etc., WANDA. November 6, 1972.