GENERAL ELECTION LETTERS

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

GENERAL ELECTION LETTERS

Sir, — H. P. Versteeg’s claim that the bribes of Labour, unlike those of National, are based on “principles” would raise a laugh if the matter were not serious. Mr Versteeg attacks “National’s superannuation election bribe.” As a person who believes in the ideals behind the welfare state, I am disgusted by the perversion of those ideals which the attempt of both main parties to buy pensioners’ votes represents. Only if taxpayers band together and threaten to refuse to pay will the endless escalation of extravagant Government spending cease. Last year the Government spent three quarters of a billion dollars more than it raised in taxation — that sort of Government dilution of the currency has become the main cause of inflation — but still both main parties promise to spend much more next year. — Yours, etc., MARK D. SADLER. November 20. 1975.

Sir, —This evening I went to hear the National Party candidate for Sydenham, Paul Matheson, speak. As I did not have an opportunity at two of his meetings to ask him a question, I went to a third meeting. After he had finished talking I began to ask my question. However as soon as I began, he got in his car and left, without answering a single question. I cannot see the point in holding meetings if a candidate is not going to at least try to answer listeners* questions. Is the National Party afraid of or incompetent to answer questions?—Yours, MRS U. C. RYAN. November 17. 1975. [Mr Matheson replies: “Due to the large number of people attending my meetings, the deep concern they have with the present state of our nation and the 45 street corner meetings planned before election day, I am sure Mrs Ryan, as one interested in politics, will appreciate the demand being requested of myself at this time. If Mrs Ryan would like to telephone me, it will be a pleasure to answer any questions or if she intends attending any further street comer meetings. would she please make herself known to me.”]

Sir. —Rather than making s point in stating that I overstepped myself, surely Mr Gourley’s reply only confirms what I was trying to convey. In criticising the Clergy for Rowling campaign I was not politicallv motivated, nor were pofitics mentioned. My concern is clergymen ganging up for Mr Rowling when everyone knows their real aim 'is the condemnation of one person, Mr Muldoon. To support my contention, Mr Gourley’s ’letter does little else but attack Mr Muldoon. My concern would be just as great were the clergy’s efforts directed against Mr Rowling or anyone else. Such tactics, I feel, are unworthy of leaders of the Church, for like the sinful woman, none of us are perfect, yet.—Yours etc., R. G. BELL. November 21, 1975.

Sir, —It is rather like a Tower of Babel in print to read the amazing variety of viewpoints in letters on the election. At least it shows that many people are concerned. Some of us though, are not very impressed with the time-worn and disillusioning cut and thrust of party politics. Labour seems to belie its name with wellmeaning measures that tend to coddle us into ever-lazier selfishness; National seems desperate to de-nationalise even-thing, including real pride in our country; Social Credit appeals slightly more to our personal pride, but some of its claims are hard to credit; and the newer Values do seem to be more concerned about our dwindling moral values. So with a wrv grin I must leave the muddled disillusionment of the traditional parties for the hope of more idealistic values.—Yours, etc., H. BENNETT. November 21, 1975. The General Election Sir, —Sir Edmund Hillary, having been to the top of the hill, can now see only down —an upside down view of things — which is why he wants us to go “rowling” downhill with Bill. Ignore him. Be rational. — Yours, etc.,

G. K. ML’RROW. November 20, 1975.

Sir, — After reading the National manifesto and watching television, it occurred to jne that National tn many areas was using Labour policy and has no viable alternative, but certainly a shocking record when it was the Government. Its housing policy, for instance, is based on existing Labour policy, copied from Housing Corporation booklets. Its economic policy is almost a mirror image of Labour’s. It virtually admits, after vigorously attacking borrowing, that it would have followed the same policy. If National is prepared to switch directions now, does not that suggest that it will do the same thing in government, and stop the 1976 tour? After al! it stopped the 1967 tour. — Yours, etc., C. MITCHELL. November 20, 1975.

Sir, —Soon we will know whether the average Newi Zealander is to continue to live in a free country, to have the chance to take a chance or be spoon-fed by a Labour Government who will- terminate incentive and opportunity, to acquire a

better standard ot living for himself and family. Stirring, fat union officials are laughing as the “workers” are being led like lambs to Bill’s slaughterhouse. Bill’s legislation will ensure that the word profit is erased from the vocabulary and the remaining employer will be “honest” Bill. Bill’s poor arithmetic has mortgaged the country to the hilt, mortgaged our houses until the foundations crack, and now he is promising a quick loan secured on every child you produce to bridge the gap between childbirth and capitalisation. Bill's mortgagee's sale will be the biggest of them all and New Zealand as we know it today will be gone forever. — Yours, etc., MATTHEW F. BROWNIE. November 21, 1975.

Sir, — Roger Blair and B. Smith should acknowledge the fact that National left Labour a fortune in overseas funds which, if handled prudently, would have helped the country through to this stage of the recession with only minimal borrowing. Instead, they repeat the fatuous assertion, made by an apologetic Prime Minister for his own economic bungling, that, under National, there would be huge unemployment. Labour promised full employment and broke its promise. It now evades the general assumption that unemployment will rise still further next year. Labour squandered our overseas funds and had to borrow and beg all around the world to avoid bankruptcy. Continued sniping at Mr Muldoon has brought the obvious reaction of mountains of telegrams pledging support, to the detriment of his political opponent—the man for “small” reasons.—Yours, J. Y. GARVEY. November 20, 1975. The General Election Sir, —St Albans has a Labour representative who lives in Wellington. St Albans has had more than its share of disasters in the last three years and has not had a representative on hand who has shared the misfortunes and been able to quickly organise help for them. Mr Drayton speaks of one ruined elm, but people of his electorate had carpets and gardens, etc., reined and weeks of work restoring things again. It would be a good idea if Mr Drayton put his working hours through his computer and found out how he achieves a practically nil result. To work 17 hours a day and achieve almost nothing must surely be one for the "Guinness Book of Records.” St Albans wants its member living in Christchurch and looking after the interests of St Albans as in Mr Walker’s time. It does not matter to us if the Prime Minister grins or not — Yours, etc.,

M. FIELDS, November 24, 1975.

Sir,—Dedicated Nationalists at the suggestion of a Nationalist ex-Prime Minister are showing their support of their leader by sending him telegrams. The president of a Labour Party branch, inspired by the same elder statesman has indicated that he will vote National. He gives as his reason “unscrupulous personal attacks and character assassination." I notice he left the Labour Party on July 19, months before the Labour campaign started. The only politician engaged in personalities at that time was Mr Muldoon in his “meet the people” campaign. He continues to do so but expects to be left alone. —Yours, etc.. T. R. RICHARDS. November 24, 1975.

Sir, —Labour, should it be re-elected on the promise of a baby bonus, should consider extending the scheme to include lambs. It could then give the vote to the country’s 56m sheep which, with the wool over their eyes, will follow little Bill Peep and his other sheep.— Yours, etc., A D. FECHNEY. November 25, 1975. Sir,—Mr Kerry Burke, M.P. for Rangiora, claims he was not responsible for his interjection confirming that “Labour members . . . are totally opposed to profits.” He makes the evidence in my letter appear unreliable. Unfortunately for Mr Burke’s credibility, the evidence in Hansard is quite conclusive. No doubt he made his denial without taking the precaution to check what is recorded in Hansard. I suggest Mr Burke read Hansard carefullv (February 27, 1974. pages 500/1) and then be good enough to withdraw his denial. Many voters in the Rangiora electorate, after learning of their member’s Left-wing views might well be concerned for their future livelihood: the numerous struggling farmers, shopkeepers and small business people, not to mention the staff of those employers whose continued operation could be threatened bv unprofitable trading. — Yours, etc ’ c. w. D. HODGSON. November 24, 1975.

Sir, — Mr Renwick's argument that "it will take 37.6 weeks of export income to pay off the overseas debt” illustrates the fuzzythinking common among manv Labour supporters. Before any export income can be used for repayments there must first be a surplus over current import requirements, but nothing in Mr Rowling’s performance or policv suggests that, at least in the foreseeable future, he -is canable of producing any-

thing but a continuance of the deficits which have created the present situation. Certainly, in a still-devel-oping country such as ours some degree of borrowing is often necessary, but this should be directed primarily towards capital requirements, rather than the maintenance, even enhancement, of an unrealistic standard of living. Borrowing our way out of trouble may serve as a stop-gap, but a day of reckoning must come; neither the patience nor pockets of overseas lenders are inexhaustible. — Yours, 6tC»A G. A. POLLOCK. November 24. 1975. Sir, — Will someone please explain why the two main political parties will persist in quoting the combined amount of pension they will pay a husband and wife, who draw their pensions as separate individuals holding personal pension books? It is, of course, realised that to quote 80 and 90 per cent of the average wage could be misleading to a large part of the electorate, otherwise it serves no good purpose. As the saying goes, “you can fool all the people some of the time, etc.” but happily not all the time. Churchmen of late have been voicing their opinions on the election. They should try being true to their calling and preaching brotherly love, not fostering hatred of a political leader. — Yours, etc., R. V. SHAW. November 24, 1974.

Sir, — The election issues can be portrayed in simple form as follows: Do you want a Government upholding the privileges of the exploiting class, or do you want one having consideration for the underprivileged ones? It is as simple as that. — Yours, etc., R. HYLAND. November 24, 1975. Sir, — The Labour response to your question about school standards (“The Press,” November 27) provides a good example of the uncritical attitude of politicians towards education which I bemoaned in a previous letter. The author of this complacent and confused statement has evidently been bedazzled by the "professionalism" of those in the Education Department whose careers thrive upon the supposition that the quality of education will be improved simply byfurther tinkering with teaching methods. — Yours, etc., R. H. STOOTHOFF. November 24, 1975.

The General Election Sir, — When asked by a Radio New Zealand reporter for some points of National Party policy, other than that of the sporting tours issue, lan Kirkpatrick, “Rugby Player for Rob,” could not instance any. The implication that after a few games of football with the Springboks, the minor problems facing New Zealand, such as inflation, balance of payments, borrowing, housing, etc., will assume their true perspective, is a beguiling one. Politics can not be kept out of sport, or any other part of life; but, in the face of such naivety, should sportsmen be kept out of politics? — Yours, etc.. JOHN BALNEAVES. November 24, 1975. Sir, — We write in appreciation of TVl’s ingenuity to

see fair play and not allow one person to hog most of the time when before the cameras. The opposite happened when the two leaders met the last time on television when Mr Rowling was making a point, Mr Muldoon would interrupt. Is this the democracy he would give the rest of New Zealand if we did not agree with him?J In other words they’re all out of step bar "our Rob with the gob." When he was restricted to the same time as other candidates he looked very ordinary. He has borrowed some of Labour’s policy in the hope he will become Prime Minister. If this happens then “God Defend New Zealand.” — Yours, etc., R. HALL. , November 24, 1975. Sir, — I have tried hard to obtain a copy of the ’’telephone directory” edition of the National Party’s manifesto. Reluctantly, I had to settle for the 75c guide which has a commendably high standard of photography but little else. Manifestos of the other two major contenders were readily obtained and both these manifestos, Values in particular, clearly spell out party policy. From National Party leaflets I notice that much of its policy appears to be qualified — “as economic circumstances permit”

or “subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance.” This coupled with its reluctance to release its manifesto makes me wonder just how much of its “policy” is avoided in this manner. — Yours, etc., D. W. O. JONES. November 24, 1975. Sir, — G. Davidson (“The Press” November 22), displays about as much understanding of farming as the Government he praises. He fails to mention that Labour impinged upon a right that farmers hold very dear, security of tenure. The Counties Amendment Act and the ill-conceived Coastal Lands Moratorium Bill are two examples of pernicious legislation which have rocked the farming industry to its foundations. Add to these the procrastination over a fair price for wheat, an increase of 40 per cent in three yearsin farm costs, and a drop of 5 million in sheep numbers in the same period, and you are left with an industry in which confidence has been virtually destroyed. Ironically, farmers have the unenviable job, of restoring New Zealand's shattered balance of payments position, but with retrenchment on every front, this will not be achieved in another sentence of three years’ hard Labour. — Yours, etc., D. T. ARCHBOLD. November 24, 1975, 1

Sir, — 1 do not recollect any party members I have heard speak on the radio or television refer to their belief in God in their pre-elec-tion speeches. It is a good thing for Christians to know the beliefs of the various party candidates before casting a vote on Saturday. May I suggest that all those who have a common faith in the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to pray (particularly Saturday morning) for guidance in this all-important world-wide decision. — Yours, etc., A DELHANTY. November 24, 1975. Sir, — The quote by G. Taylor of the words of wisdom uttered by Abraham Lincoln should be emblazoned in the hearts and minds of every New Zealander who has the welfare of the country in his hands on election day. The Australian catastrophe should serve to show what can happen when too much power and money are handled by bureaucratic governments. The Government superannuation scheme will be open to exploitation, and should therefore be suspect I join now with G. Taylor in urging readers to think before they vote lest we also then have forced elections to follow, as has happened in Australia. —- Yours, etc., L. E. REID, 1 November 24, 1975.