GENERAL ELECTION CORRESPONDENCE

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 34008, 24 November 1975, Page 26

GENERAL ELECTION CORRESPONDENCE

Sir, — So much confusion; has been created by! conflicting statements made! by politicians regarding im-j migration figures. According! to figures in the Monthly Abstract of Statistics, for I the year ended March, 1975, the total number of New Zealanders returning after long-term absence. was 17,566. For the same period ‘ the equivalent departures ; totalled 36.689. Therefore, i there has been a net outflow 1 of 19.123 New Zealanders. ■To have a net gain of 5000 immigrants. New Zealand could allow 24.123 new residents and no New Zealanders would be locked out. Mr Movie and his colleagues lose credibility when they distort these figures. —- Yours, etc., L. FALLOON. November 22. 1975. Sir. —• I am happy to ; reply to Derek Quigley's letiter asking for an explanation of the comments I made bv the Women’s ElecI toral Lobby (W.E.L.) on condidates for the general election. The “press kit” preI pared by the Wellington ■ branch of W.E.L. stated that, I in interpreting given by the candidates’ scores, it could be borne in mind that a score of four points would be, in general, gained by “average candidates, favouri ably disposed to women’s issues, but not actively sup- ! porting them — a good ! score for callous senior i members and Ministers.” ; However, the particular , comments made on each individual candidate were arrived at by a synthesis of the impressions formed by the two interviewers who questioned each candidate and the inferences drawn by the scorers on reading the

[comments by candidates; I which were recorded on the ; questionnaire. For example, i the comments made by can- ' didates when answering questions inserted to elicit awareness of women’s issues' were considered significant.! — Yours, etc.. JOAN ROTHERHAM. November 21, 1975. Sir. — The National Party! is sharply critical of the ex-1 tent to which the Govern-j . ment has become involved 1 in the affairs of the individ-l ual, but their concern is not backed up by their mani- ■ festo. Under a National Gov- ' ernment we are promised an 1 increase in bureaucracy ' which leaves the Labour ■ Party standing. The Labour Party proposes to establish two new bodies — a liquor industry advisory board and a commission on women’s 1 rights. The National Party proposes no less than 16 new State commissions, sec- ' retariats and boards and at ' least one more is possible. " Mr Muldoon has promised to • curb any increase in State " spending. Without taking 1 into account any of his > promises for regional devel- ■ opment, education, housing 1 farming or other areas, this J startling increase in bureau--1 cracy is going to take a r large amount of taxpayers’ ■ money', often only to dupli--5 cate work being done by ■ other sections of governI ment. Is the bill for this, r like National’s superannuation scheme, going to r be financed out of inflation 1 too? — Yours, etc., J. C. ROSS. f November 21, 1975. z j Sir. — In an article headed e “Rolleston growth will not y affect Rangiora” printed in e “The Press” last. year, the

■M.P. for Rangiora (Mr T. K. 1 i Burke) said: “Rolleston is : designed to take the growth ■ which would otherwise occur ; in Auckland and Wellington.” : Now, the same member of /Parliament is saying (“The .(Press,” November 11, 1975) I that if Rolleston does not proceed “the pressure on the: existing centres of Rangiora. I Kaiapoi, Brooklands and I ? I Spencerville will be huge and, ■: inescapable.” These two con-1 -■ dieting statements are typical: ilof the confused thinking that j ■lhas marked discussions about I tjßolleston. What the National’ -iParty has said is that it is; -Inot " prepared to support lißolleston if this was at the: /(expense of existing centres., r’And anyway, what gives the ri Labour Government the right ilto assume that Canterbury r people want their area to; iidevelop into another Auck--5; land? — Yours, etc.. A R. J. GERARD. 5 Nov. 18. 1975.. ’[ [Mr Burke replies: “I am; that Mr Gerard,, " the Rangiora electorate chair-; Fman of the National Party,; e 'should completely mis-state! ?ior misunderstand National’s s policy with regard to Rolles- ’ ton, in addition to being un--8 able to comprehend Labour’s, s His leader said in Christchurch in December, 1974, a that Rolleston would be >’ scrapped and that this was I- confirmed by Mr Gordon in y February', 1975, and again 1- last week by Mr Muldoon in 5, Oamaru. Labour’s policy and •- my statement are quite clear, 0 and are complementary n rather than conflicting. Rolleston is designed to inject into the South sland some of the growth which would otherwise gravitate to Auckd land or Wellington. It is also >t essential to provide a new n growth centre for the populae tion increase which will oc-

cur in the Christchurch area t regardless of Government 1 policy. The alternatives, 1 which are unacceptable to 1 Labour and to me, are to 1 smash the urban fence and I suburbanise Christchurch’s 1 green belt or to place Christ- : church’s future growth into i 'the existing communities,' •such as Rangiora, Kaiapoi.! and Belfast. We say that they; (should continue to develop if! (they choose to, and that this! • character and way of life! should not be subjected to! (massive disruption, inevitable: • if Rolleston is scrapped.”] Sir, —1 was interested to; (hear from Mr John Kirk M.P.I I at a recent street corner '; meeting, that following a • (recent United Nations reso-i lution declaring that. Zion-1 |ism is a form of racism, the. Labour Party intends to treat: .Israel the same as South Africa. Presumably this will i mean that all Israeli sports-' men will be refused admis-j sion to New Zealand and that \ the Government will do its! • best to dissuade New Zea- ! land sportsmen from travelling overseas to play against Israelis. The Montreal Olympics, I think, is the next occasion when, without Labour Party intervention in the affairs of sports bodies, we would be due to meet Israel- • ites on the sports field. No doubt as in the case of South • Africa, we will continue to •i trade with them,—Yours, ■ etc M. SOMERFIELD. • November 17, 1975. l! [Mr John Kirk, M.P.. reFl plies: “T quote the following lifrom the manifesto of my - party: ‘The Labour Govern- ) is wholeheartedly pledged r to support the United Na- - tions. Despite its imperfec- - tions the United Nations is

the world’s only hope for; peace and harmony.’ I would; also draw attention to a point: from my party's manifesto! regarding racial discrimina-: tion. The Labour Govern-: ment rejects all doctrines of I racial superiority. The Lab-' our Government will conjtinue to: (a) Support United. • Nations efforts to end racial [discrimination wherever it is: [practised, (b) Seek the abanIdonment of apartheid policies: [wherever they are practised. •(c) Assist all those who suf-: Ifer from racial oppression.”]:

Sir. — 1 shall not be voting for either National or' Labour — the effects of' both their policies on me' have been nothing more but steadily to deprive me of my rights as an individual to manage and conduct my own affairs in the way "1 think is best, for my welfare. Year by year, their Governments have dipped their hands deeper into my pocket, taking away my income, and what, is left is now becoming so debased it will soon be cheaper to wallpaper the house with it. I am fast becoming bankrupt on the wages I used to dream about. — Yours, etc., D. W. ARMSTRONG. November 23, 1975.

Sir, — In reply to J. F. Garvey, the essential comparison between 1968 and 1975 is that overseas debt, including both private and Government borrowing, was greater then than now. Moreover, the economy was wrecked in a mild recession. Mr Rowling's economic policies have not failed. New Zealand’s economy is sounder than ever. Capital investment is at an all-time high. Business confidence ihas been maintained. Jobs have been saved. New Zealand has not been brought to a standstill by harsh econ- [ omic measures. New Zealand’s prosperity is the envy of the Western World. Admittedly it was a gamble to borrow — but it is paying off as prices of exports are rapidly rising, and it is well recognised that the amount borrowed is well within New Zealand’s ability to repay. — Yours, etc., G. DAVIDSON. November 21, 1975.

Sir, — L. H. Carmichael obviously belongs to the National Party, otherwise he would not say such ridiculous things. It is the National Party which is desperately determined to win the election. If they do not, they will finish up as the permanent party of opposition, without their current leader. The various tactics of National show their desperation. These include schemes to discredit Mrs Tirikatene-Sul-livan, Mr Tizard, Mr G. O'Brien; the lies put out. by their gutter press; the barn storming of the country by Mr Muldoon; and the unI seemly activities of Mr Mul- • doon in Parliament. One of| jtheir most obnoxious is the ! attempt to revive the bogy iof socialism and commuri•ism. It is about time Mr Charmichael realised that there is no connection between Labour and communism, just as there is little connection between the true Nationals and fascism. . — Yours, etc., K. TAYLOR. November 22, 1975.

Sir, — Labour’s two tiered superannuation scheme is a winner. Take the first tier of superannuation itself for instance. This abolishes the irregular superannuation practices which occurred under the last National administration, and provides all workers with a chance to save for retirement. It is designed to benefit the wage earner. Instead of a straight, tax on wages the pension is financed by employer and employee contributions which are tax deductible. The contributions carry over; from job to job. There is I provision for a lump sum. The superannuation is sup-, plementary to the guaranteed minimum income fori pensioners (the pension sys- ■ tern), which becomes the: second tier of the scheme.. National’s scheme is paid in-1 stead of old age benefits. The superannuation fund will accumulate large sums of money which will be invested in New Zealand industry, provide workers with cheap housing loans, and finance local body work. The National scheme does not provide this tier. — Yours, etc.,

T. WARREN November 22, 1975.

Sir, — I am not the M. Waghorne whose letter appeared in "The Press” on November 20 suggesting a continuation of the elitist policies espoused by at least three, and possibly four, of the largest non-socialist political parties in New Zealand. We need a democracy not a bureau-technocracy. — Yours, etc..

MIKL WAGHORNE November 21, 1975.

Sir, — The devastation wrought by the Whitlam Government is known to all. iThe reason for the disaster may be found in the following words of Abraham Lincoln. “You cannot bring about prosperity by dis■couraging thrift. You cannot strenthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further: the brotherhood of man by| encouraging class hatred. ‘ You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot establish sound se- ; curity on borrowed money, i You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage jby taking away man’s in-. itiative and independence i | You cannot men per- 1

manently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” I: earnestly beseech readers to think hard before they vote! as conditions here are fast! following those in Australia.’ — Yours, etc.. G. TAYLOR. November 21, 1975. Sir. — "The Press" question on school standards! brought a strange replv from National, that "because: of other factors, children are not obtaining sufficient basic* skills." What factors'.’ How: does this equate with Mr! Muldoon’s jibes about hecklers’ getting someone to 1 read or count for them? This' party continued the system brought in under Labour and' practised by Labour still.! 1 Social Credit does not mention primary schools, where! basic skills should be taught. Values is woolly-minded, about it. It proves to me that these politicians are unaware that thousands leave land have left school unable ;to read, write, spell or, count. If these parties or their spokesmen do not know that there is a problem. and that it is not the children's fault, they will never try to put it’ right. Parents want basic, not remedial, reading.—Yours, etc., etc.,

V. H. ANDERSON November 22. 1975.

Sir, — In the National Party Mr Muldoon would have far less say than the unions have in the Labour Party. The unions hold the majority voting power. It is my contention that most of your readers would agree that Mr Muldoon is sweet reasonableness compared to: say, the secretary of the F.O.L. After all, it was the unions that dictated that Mr Kirk was to stop the South African Rugby tour even though Mr Kirk had solemnly promised not to interfere. Similarly, Mr Rowling is the front man for a dictatorial body and he is powerless to confront it. Let the electorate beware. — Yours, etc.,

J. S. VILE. November 21, 1975.

Sir, —Reading the account of the Counties Amendment Bill (Hansard, Pages 500/1, 27/2/1974) I learn that our member for Rangiora is totally opposed to profits. At the same time we have th< Labour member for Souther Maori claiming a boutique ii Wellington, and a previou; Labour candidate for th< Rangiora seat, Mr Rino Tirakatene. advertising his shopping ventures at Woodend. I say good luck to such show of initiative. If the member for Rangiora ever succeeded in having profits abolished bylaw. then the farming industry would be in chaos, shopkeepers in Rangiora and Kaiapoi would be. on the breadline, and the woman with the corner store couldn't

keep in business. Too many businesses are already folding un under Labour, but what does that matter to a socialist M.P.? Of course it. matters, for if the employer folds un the employee loses his job.—Yours, etc..

C. W. D HODGSON. November 16. 1975. [Mr Burke replies: "I am recorded as saying ‘Yes’ during a speech bv Mr Gair in which he was claiming that the Labour aPrty was opposed to profits 1 did not make that interjection and Mr Gair did not show me la proof copy of his Hansard iso that it could be corrected I before final printing The section of the House where I isit contains both Labour and National members and the Yes’ may well have been said by a National member ■agreeing with Mr Gair and 'mistakenly attributed to me T certainly did not say it. I am not opposed to profits i which are fair and reasonable. Nor is the Labour Party.

-Evidence this i< seen all but the hopelessly blind tnat in the midst of a de- ' pression four times as severe as in 1968 Labour has man aged the economy so that less than one-third of that year’s bankruptcies have r> ( curred."]