Are these Labour seats vulnerable?

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 34009, 25 November 1975, Page 24

Are these Labour seats vulnerable?

National feels the Labour-held top-of-the-island seats of Tasman, Nelson, and Marlborough—are vulnerable. i The holders of Tasman and Nelson, the Prime Minister (Mr Rowling) and the Speaker of the House (Mr Stan Whitehead), respectively, find this assertion grimly amusing. Marlborough’s lan Brooks is not amused—he is too hard at I work repulsing the strong I National challenge for what has become a "hot” seat. On the voting figures at i the 1972 polls, there is ■ hardly cause for confidence ; by any of the three sitI ting members. Mr Rowling had an election night majority of 1792 (finah 1834), Mr Whitehead 1826 (1933), and Mr Brooks 1290 (1274). National views these figures as "marginal.” Just how marginal they are is going to depend greatly on the degree of support given each candidate by the new voters—--3918 in Tasman, 3635 in Nelson, and 3213 in Marlborough. In agreement The only thing that is a certainty about the Marlborough seat is that the polling is going to be close. Both candidates, while agreeing ■ on very little else, admit this much. In the final analysis, much will depend on the teamwork of each party—on the work done behind the scenes by those in the party offices, in the homes, and in the cars. When he first got the nod ; from his electoral com- . mittee in October last I year, the National candidate, Mr Ted Latter, began freeing himself from most of the commitments he has had for many years. His planning for November 29, 1975. began immediately and has intensified over the i months. National is very intent I upon bringing back into the fold a seat it lost at the by-election in 1970 after the death of its incumbent, Mr Tom Shand. The extent of Mr Shand’s personal following was never more clearly demonstrated than at that election. Loss of voles In 1969, Mr Shand j emerged from the genera! election with a 2460

majority over Mr Brooks. At the by-election, Mr Shand’s son, Mr A. V. Shand, polled 3000 votes less than his father and lan Brooks took the seat with a 1043 majority in a four-candidate poll. Of interest is the polling at the 1966 election when Mr Shand was given the shock of his life by the polling of his Labour opponent, Dr Gerry Wall. He won the seat by a mere 732 votes, thereby confirming Labour’s views that the seat could, with a little work and the right candidate, go to Labour. Now. National wants it back. It tried hard, with its 1972 candidate. Mr Bruno Dalliessi, a man wellknown in local body affairs, particularly in the Blenheim-Picton area. He was a businessman, with widespread interests. Ted Latter is a farmer and as such he is expected to get strong support from the rural community. Realising this, he is placing great emphasis on securing his share from the biggest voting pot in the electorate. the rapidly-growing Blenheim. Among the people It is unlikely, however, for traditional reasons, that his town vote will approach that of Mr Brooks. He has 16 publicspeaking engagements, but is making sure he is seen among the people. That is where he was—among rural people — when this photograph was taken at a children’s pet parade at Okaramio. Mr Latter’s main opponent, the mild-mannered lan Brooks, is quite sore at being labelled on a television programme as one of Parliament’s “ineffectual” members. “If, by ineffectual, they mean 1 wasn’t always on my feet in the House, then perhaps they have got grounds for saying this,” he says. “But what makes a good M.P.? A bloke who’s always on his feet in the House, or a bloke who pays attention to his electorate?” The reason why there was no major contentious issues within the electorate was because he had worked so well for Marlborough, he said. He cited the increased State house building in an electorate badly in need of housing—almost 50 houses in three years

compared with National’s four in two years. This had been one of the most important aspects of his work for Marlborough during Labour’s last term, he says. He ticked off many other benefits gained within the electorate—automatic telephone exchanges at Seddon and Ward; Marlborough as a Regional Development Council area: LPG gas for Blenheim; pensioner flats: adequate married living quarters at Woodbourne air base; the new hot pool complex at Hanmer. cost ing $300,000: and the retention of Queen Mary Hospital there. All these benefits, he says, were the results of the pressures he had brought to bear quietly while pursuing his Parliamentary duties. Carrying the banner for Social Credit for the ninth time is Mr George Kerr. He can expect about the same support he has always won —a little more perhaps this year with all the extra voters. Mr Richard Belton (Values), too, can be assured of the votes of those vitally interested in environmental and ecological issues—if nothing else. The votes these two collect might well have an important bearing on who will represent Marlborough “In my blood” “Unfair, unfair” shouted Labour supporters earlier this year when National disclosed its intention to make a strong, frontal assault on the Tasman seat, at a time when the Prime Minister would be heavily committed to his nationwide stompings and affairs of state. There were suggestions that Mr Rowling should seek a safer seat. These he rejected. “Tasman,” he says, “is in my blood.” He is obviously confident that the vast rural areas within his far-flung electorate, and the traditional National vote from these, cannot match the voting power of the populace concentrated in the big boroughs of Richmond, Motueka. and Picton, and the smaller towns of Takaka, Murchison. and Havelock. Undoubtedly he assessed the vibrations in these built-up areas before the election campaign began, when he and Mrs Rowling travelled the length and breadth of the electorate “meeting the people.” No doubt, too, the extent of his campaigning within his