Letters to the Editor

Press, 31 May 1978, Page 14

Letters to the Editor

(1) Letters submitted tur printing in tbis column must not exceed 150 words. They should ne written in ink or preferably typed on one side of the paper. Ample spate must be left tn the margins and between tines for subediting marks (21 Letters written over pen names or initials will not ordinarily be considered for publication. A legible signature and a full postal address —not a P.O. Box numberare essential (31 The correspondent must say whether the tetter has been or is to be submitted elsewhere. The Editor does not undertaken to acknowledge, holo, return or enter into correspondence on any letter not accepted for publication. G.S.—Too long. See rules. B.C.O.—The points have been made. Bastion Point Sir, — It seems that the police are being blamed for something over Bastion Point that is not their fault. Our law was written by Europeans and, naturally, for Europeans. It did hot consider the Maori sentimentality, emotionalism and depth of feeling at all, because these things do not mean a thing in a court of law. In fact, they are ridiculed by several of your ethnocentric readers. I had a teacher who made constant references to the wonderful degree of understanding between Maori and pakeha. She was wrong.—Yours, etc., R. T. BENNETT. May 29, 1978.

Sir, — Several important points have been omitted by correspondents critical of Government action over Bastion Point. First, the Labour Government did not accede to the protesters’ demands; only now does Mr Rata discover his bleeding conscience. Also, it would be very dangerous for one land law to be applied to Maoris and another to Europeans; that would surely be racial inequality. Why has little mention been made of the agreement between the Government and the Ngati Whatua elders; are they not the real representatives of the Maoris, rather than a group of disaffected individuals? Why was the Auckland Trades’ Council involved?

Did they see this as an industrial dispute or an opportunity to disrupt the community? Taking all these joints into account, I think the Government took the proper course of action. — Yours, etc., T. J. SKINNER. May 30, 1978. Bastion Point Sir, — While watching television on Thursday night on the eviction of the Macri people from Bastion Point, I was ashamed of the pakehas. The large-scale police operations reminded me of scenes I witnessed myself in Nazi Germany 38 years ago. When I returned to my now democratic homeland, Austria, full of praises for my adopted land and the good relations between Maori and pakeha, my countrymen were very pleased for me. Now, 1978, I do feel I told my old friends a fairy tale. — Yours, etc., CHARLOTTE ROHS. May 28, 1978.

Effect of repeal Sir, — Mrs McNeill (May 29), questions, the intelligence and integrity of the many caring and concerned New Zealanders, who have openly and honestly given their help and support to the Repeal petition. It is the vocal minority of the right - to - life - at-any-price camp that uses emotive and devious methods to gain sympathy for restrictive and compassionless views. Repeal offered the people an opportunity to express their democratic right on this issue. Freedom for the individual in New Zealand is rapidly fading. — Yours, SANDRA M. LEGGE. May 30, 1978. Sir, — The effect of the new abortion laws has been that women have been forced to act for themselves. They have organised spectacularly well, and made abortion available to many women other than the wellinformed and wealthy, and so the number of abortions has increased. Repeal of the law will not remove raised political consciousness or

organising skill and experience. But it will remove the farce of women having to pretend they are going crazy, and it will stop doctors having to pretend they are not carrying out abortions on request. It will also enable specialist clinics to work effectively, with proven greater safety for the physical and mental health of the patient than public hospitals (see the 1977 Canadian Badgley Report). By no means least, it will reduce the very dangerous social tension caused by making so many people feel like outlaws in their own country. — Yours, etc., ALAN L. WILKINSON. May 29, 1978. Effect of repeal Sir, — Mrs L. V. McNeill’s concern that a few signatures on a repeal abortion legislation petition could be suspect does not alter the fact that the majority will be genuine. How many pro-abortionists are aware of a statement made in the sixteenth century by Martin Luther: “Let them bear children till they die of it: that is what they are for.” Thank God for the twentieth century and the anti-abortionists. — Yours, ROSIE WITTY. May 29, 1978.

Sir, — Mrs L. V. McNeill attacks the validity of the Repeal petition. Supporters of the present restrictive legislation seem unable to defend their position and instead attack any attempt by caring New Zealanders who express their concern in a democratic manner. If even 100,000 Repeal petitioners come into the categories outlined by Mrs McNeill, which I am sure they do not, it still would- leave more than 200,000 honest signatures. How can she ex» plain them away? — Yours, B. WATSON. Auckland. May 29, 1978. Energy policy Sir, — As your editorial of May 29 points out, “Goals and Guidelines. An

Energy Strategy for New Zealand” is strong on platitudes but short on proposals for this country’s energy future. Although the report recognises the seriousness of the transport sector’s dependence on oil, and that “New Zealand’s development has been built around the continued expansion of transport,” statements such as “transport can no doubt use less oil” suggest that “she’ll be right” prevails. How many New Zealand motorists will bother to read the report or even newspaper comments on the report? How many really care what might happen in the 1980 s and beyond? After all, given a job, a house in the suburbs, and a car (or two), what is there to worry about? Perhaps the understatement of the century might prove to be the report’s comment that “ . . . future economic and social development aims may not be achieved.” — Yours, etc., R. F. BROWNE. May 29, 1978. Teachers’ salary claims Sir, — Hats off to the gutsy teacher who has resigned from the Post-Prim-ary Teachers’ Association workers’ union. She, at least, has retained professional status. — Yours, etc., (Mrs) M. E. RITCHIE. May 30, 1978. Number of doctors Sir,—ln reply to Brian Wilson (May 26), who makes the familiarly tiresome error of equating long waiting-lists with shortage of doctors: Each patient’s operation requires operating theatre time and, afterwards, occupancy of a bed for several days. Intelligent readers will have realised that the length of a waiting-list depends mainly on the numbers of operatingtheatres and beds available. Surgeons are bombarded with irate letters from patients on their waiting-lists, but this is wasted anger. Surgeons already know all too well the length of their waiting-lists. It is to the health authorities

that the public should complain, as they organise the theatres and beds, etc. — Yours, etc., N. WILSON. May 29, 1978. National Superannuation Sir, — The Assistant Director-General of Social Welfare, Mr Hazlett, states that people are better off under National Superannuation than they were on old age benefit. This may be true for most but certainly not for all. For the first time since the age benefit was introduced a dictinction has been made between a recipient with a wife over 60 and one with a wife under 60. With a wife under 60 the recipient may take either the single pr the married benefit. If he takes the married benefit then it is subject to a means test, and this in some cases reduces the amount received considerably. The principle of a recipient receiving the benefit under the same conditions regardless of the age of his wife should never have been altered. It penalises a recipient with a wife under 60 who by his thrift has provided himself with a secondary income.—Yours, etc., W. R. HOBBS. May 30, 1978. Mr Muldoon and U.S. Sir,—-Tough-talking Robert Muldoon has brought New Zealand to new heights in world affairs—that is to say, American eyes. He says so himself (“The Press,” May 29). As a result of his blunt speaking, he tells us by a mouthpiece, Cedric Mentiplay: “There is no doubt that there has been a great deal more American activity in respect of this part of the world.” This certainly is good news. Not only that, some under-assistant bat-boy in charge of the dugouts in a little league ball park came to New Zealand with the Vice-President and actually spoke to Mr Muldoon (Paragraph 8: reading is believing). Thii fellow has established a special South Pacific “team.”

Things are really looking up. What a relief. We may be sure that at this very moment they are working hard in our best interests.— Yours, etc., STEPHEN McCLOY. May 29, 1978. Freedom of conscience Sir, — B. Roberts (May 30) is confused regarding law and conscience. If caught driving a car at 200km/h, can I explain to the magistrate that mv job depends on getting to my destination at a certain time. My social and economic circumstances, not to mention my mental health, are endangered by the prospect of losing my job. This forces me, »> conscience, to speed. I plead that the road is safe and easy; my car is in first-class mechanical order with new radials. The magistrate asks: “But what if a child wanders on the road and is killed?” I reply that he or she is only a potential motorist and the rights of existing motorists who, in conscience, must travel at higher speeds than the law permits, take precedence. I believe most magistrates would have me committed for observation. Are we all going mad? — Yours, etc., R. P. DALZIEL. May 30, 1978. Orlov trial Sir, — I wish to endorse E. Sutherland’s statement, that Mr Yuri Orlov has been wrongfully imprisoned by the Soviet Union for things of which he is innocent. I hope that Christians in New Zealand and all decent morally minded New Zealanders will take up the cudgels of protest against wicked persecutions of people wherever they may be — even as far away as Soviet Russia. I also hope our Prime Minister will write a letter of protest regarding this miscarriage of justice. — Yours, etc., (Mrs) RENEE STANTON. Bible Lady. May 28, 1978.