The ‘carpet-baggers’ —their role in today’s political scene

Press, 13 February 1981, Page 13

The ‘carpet-baggers’ —their role in today’s political scene

KARREN BEANLAND

completes the series,

begun yesterday, on the controversy raging over over the selection of Ruth Richardson as National Party candidate for Selwyn, with a look in this article at Christchurch’s other recent “carpetbaggers.”

‘lnjection of talent’

Christchurch has attracted its fair .share of “ c a r p e t-baggers,” the members of Parliament who have come from another area to stand in an electorate. The most recent

example — and one which is causing a strong feeling of resentment among party members as well as a many general voters — is the selection of Ruth Richardson as the National candidate for Selwyn. However, the Labour Party members for Papanui, Mike Moore, and for Christchurch Central, Geoff Palmer, were also new to Christchurch when they took up their seats. This scathing term “car-pet-bagger” may be even more apt as a description of these members of Parliament than first appears. The name was originally given in the United States to northern “political adventurers” who sought careers in the southern states after the civil war of 1865. The term came into use because all they brought with them as a property qualification were their carpet-bags.

In two of the three recent Christchurch cases, the “carpet-baggers” have come from the North Island to stand in South Island electorates. In an atmosphere where many “mainlanders” feel they are being left out in the political cold, they see a North Island M.P. as a final indignity. The strength of the reaction to outside M.P.s varies and seems to be stronger in Selwyn, a rural area, than in urban areas. While feeling is running high in Selwyn over the choice of Ruth Richardson as a candidate, Geoff Palmer says he found little reaction in his electorate, while Mike Moore believes the reaction was stronger in his case in the media than among his constituents. A recent visit’ to the Selwyn electorate by “The Press” showed that a surprising number of people are unhappy about the selection of Miss Richardson. The reason given by most is that she does not come from the area and, therefore, that she cannot have a background understanding of the area. Many mention the fact that, she is a North Islander in a tone bordering on disgust. Both the Labour “car-pet-bagger” M.P.s agree that it is important candidates have a strong local identity. But, they add, outsiders can represent an electorate as well as a local person provided they go about it in the right way. “I think it is preferable

to have a local person. There is an understandable feeling from people that how can someone who has not lived with .us understand our problems,” says Mr Moore, who, born in Northland, was the M.P. for Eden from 1972 to 1975 before standing in Papanui in 1978. He is surprised • that there has not been a stronger news media reaction to the selection of. Miss Richardson for Selwyn. “When I was .selected the front page newspaper story 'was about an outsider being chosen. I got a hammering from the media, the National Party, and from some Labour people,” he adds.

Now he reasons that the reaction which “staggered” him at the time because

so many others had stood as outsiders in the past, was politically orchestrated. He believes he was a target because he was a controversial figure. Mr Moore names people such as for the member Ohariu (Hugh Templeton), the new National Party deputy leader . (Duncan Mclntyre) and the member for Rangiora (Derek Quigley) as among the "many” who have contested several different seats. Even Mr Rowling stood unsuccessfully in Fendalton in 1960 before -standing for Buller in 1962. “Carpet-bagging” is a more recent phenomena in Christchurch. Since the Second World War the only successful outsiders besides Mr Pr.lmer and Mr Moore were Roger Drayton and John Kirk. However, both of these could claim extensive family ties with Christchurch. Mr Moore says he did not find much resentment among the voters in his electorate. He avoided such criticism by an extensive getting-to-know-t h e-p eop 1 e campaign

which started when he moved into the area in January of the election year. “My first job when I arrived here’ did not have anything to do with vote winning, but everything to do with getting to know the area.” Being an outsider coming to an electorate made no difference to the M.P.’s performance in the long term. It had a short-term effect because the person had to spend time learning about the area. He believes that his case was different from that of Ruth Richardson in Selwyn. Although some newspapers saw it that way, he was not making an opportunist move because Papanui was not a safe Labour seat. In Selwyn, there was a feeling that Miss Richardson had come in to take a safe seat over the heads of local people. 'He adds that the reaction to Miss Richardson is probably strong because Selwyn 'is a rural area, where people could be more narrow-minded than in a city area. From this point of view Miss Richardson faced suspicion because “she is seen to be part of a liberal permissive section of the National Party which is out of the mainstream of the party.” Mr Palmer, who was born and bred in Nelson, says he met very little criticism about his being an outsider when he stood in the Christchurch Central by-election in 1979. “I had more resistance on the ground that I didn’t have any connection with trade unions,” he adds. He was helped by the fact that he did have connections with Christchurch, his mother having grown up here. He was also a South Islander. He says that Ruth Richardson has a different kettle of fish to fry in Selwyn. Becoming a familiar face in Christchurch Central, an area he could cross in 10 minutes on a bicycle, was much easier than getting known in Selwyn, which extends from the Banks Peninsula to Arthur’s Pass. “An M.P. does represent people in a site with territorial boundaries, and I think it is important to understand those people and to be able to communicate with them and to have some appreciation

of their problems,” he adds.

Without wanting to impose a pattern on M.P.s, Mr Palmer says it is important that. there is. . a total family commitment to an electorate. “There are some things that Ruth Richardson is going to have some difficulty doing. Your whole family has to come to live in an electorate the whole time. You cannot service the electorate from Wellington.” He would “sink” without the help of his wife, Margaret, who takes care of the electorate office.

A Christchurch political scientist, Mr A. D. Mcßobie says that the resentment of Ruth Richardson on the grounds that she is an outsider came because New Zealanders still have a parochial attitude towards their members of Parliament. “It annoys people basically because they still have the idea of the M.P. as a social worker-cum-om-budsman.”

' A survey conducted in Christchurch in 1973 showed that most people believed the primary role of an M.P. was this “social worker” one. In support of this he recalls

the tales of a freshly elected M.P. called to fix constituent’s broken gas stove. “In one sense, New Zealand has a very open kind of society. There is the almost apocryphal story of a woman in Wellington who lost her bags on a train and called the Prime Minister to come and find them — and he did.” This “village-type mentality” belonged to the days when members of Parliament provided • roads and bridges, “and opened baby shows and things.”

He is adamant that New Zealand politics are now sophisticated enough to require a far more profes-sional-style politilian.

“The role of M.P.s has changed. This sort of social work has to be done because there are people who do not know where to turn when problems arise. Some people don’t even know when to go to a lawyer. “But we need M.P.s who have time to sit back and think and research in depth, so that the kind of legislation we do get is the best possible legislation — which is not the kind we get at present.” He believes that the recent cases of carpet-bag-ging indicate that both major parties are trying to

“inject talent” into . the system. In a recent magazine article, Mr Mcßobie put forward his. theory that there was a “conspiracy” to have Mr Palmer selected for Christchurch Central. Likewise, he says that Miss Richardson’s selection was engineered. Mr Mcßobie suggests that Mis§ Richardson was “the party’s choice.” Besides being, cabinet material,, the National Party needed another strong woman in Parliament. Representing the Selwyn

electorate was also in a sense a reward for standing against Mr Rowling in the Tasman electorate in 1978.

“I don’t think they ever believed they would win Tasman, but they put so much pressure on Rowling that he had to stay at home and he couldn’t go up and down the country to the same degree” he says.

Both Mr Palmer and Miss Richardson hotly deny Mr Mcßobie’s suggestions.- However the theories do get some support from within -the Selwyn electorate itself. Along with the objection that she is an outsider, many National Party members in the area resent Miss Richardson be-

cause of the way she was selected. Out of 10 nominations, the pre-selection committee only allowed three people to go before the party for selection. They could have chosen up to five, and some people claim that the strongest local candidate was not allowed to go past the nomination stage. Mr Palmer says that criticism of his being an outsider was stifled because all the 18 hopeful candidates “faced the starter.” Labour does not have a pre-selection com-

mittee which makes a short-list of people who are finally put to • the party for sleection.

Mr Mcßobie also thinks that the influence of the party hierarchy in recent cases has been stronger than usual because the local party organisation has had no experience of the selection process for some time. In Selwyn the previous selection was made 35 years ago, and in Christchurch Central there was a gap of 10 years since the last selection. Unused to the way a selection is made, local organisers would tend to defer to the opinions of head office he says. ’

He adds that safe seats are more likely to attract ‘ ‘ c a r p e t-baggers” than

more marginal seats. Not only was that because “every man and his dog” was after a safe seat but also because a talented politician could be used by the party in other areas. “If . you put talented people, or people with considerable potential in a safe seat where they don’t have to be concerned with nursing the electorate along just to get in again they can be used to campaign actively elsewhere. This does not mean they do not look after their electorates.” Mr Mcßobie says that the resentment of Miss Richardson has been fuelled by the feeling that she has been given a safe seat. There was also a lot of anger from party faithfuls w r ho had not been happy with Mr McLachlan but who had kept quiet and worked on in the hope of getting a good local candidate. Further difficulties would come from being a woman in a conservative rural area.

Despite this, he believes National will retain its hold on Selwyn.

Since Miss Richardson was selected on the first ballot of party members, which meant she had the support of more than half the 137 voting delegates, he thinks she has a good ,a chance as any candidate of building on - those loyalties. . . ...

“My guess is that the opposition among those who matter is not very great,” he says.