Chch test may be crucial in snap election decision

Press, 4 August 1981, Page 1

Chch test may be crucial in snap election decision

By

KARREN BEANLAND

The level of anti-tour activity in Christchurch for the first Springbok test on August 15 could determine whether a snap election on a law-and-order. platform is called.

The likelihood of an early election appears to have receded since the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) said on Saturday that it was “clearly a possibility.” He said he considered it unwise to disclose exactly what would make him go to the country.

However, the first test match at Lancaster Park in Christchurch would be crucial, said Mr A. D. Me

Robie, a political commentator and lecturer at the Christchurch Teachers' College, yesterday.

An election would probably be called if violence against the tour provoked the police using “considerable force that was not a normal part of New Zealand society," he said. Protest activity had “cooled down" since the incident at Hamilton two weeks ago, and if it stayed at that level the reason for calling a snap election would slip away. Both the Labour Party and Social Credit say they are prepared if a snap election is called. The Social Credit leader (Mr B. C. Beetham) and the Labour member of Parliament for Christchurch Central (Mr G. W. R. Palmer) agreed yesterday that a snap election was a “possibility but not a probability."

Unanswered is the question whether the Springbok tour would be called off if an early election were called. If' Mr Muldoon called a snap election he would ask the Governor General (Sir David Beattie) to dissolve Parliament. After that the “machinery” in the Electoral Act would be set in motion, said Mr Mcßobie. The minimum time before an election could be called would be about 3% weeks. The maximum would be seven weeks. The Government would probably want about four weeks to present its message to the public. Taking into account the Royal tour in October and the Commonwealth Heads-of-Govern-ment conference in Melbourne in September, an election would have to be held near the end of September, said Mr Mcßobie. Mr Mcßobie said that at this stage the odds were against a snap election. History was against it. as the only snap election this century was after the 1951 waterfront dispute, and because Mr Muldoon was “a conservative person." An advantage of going to the polls on a law-and-order platform was that the National Party could pick up support from Social Credit in rural seats. National had “made capital” out of the law-and-order issue “for years and years” and it was an issue “tailor-made” for a conservative party. Another reason for calling an early election was the “huge deficit” in this year’s Budget. If National was successful in an early election, Mr Muldoon could bring in a tougher Budget before the. end of the year.

Mr Mcßobie said he was not entirely happy with

claims that a law-and-order election would be a tactic to divert attention away from the economy. However, the Government needed a black-and-white issue because its “think big” policy was not getting across to people.

But there would be a risk in going to the polls on the law-and-order issue. “In 1951 the Government of the day actually won the battle with the watersiders before it called a General Election. At the moment the Government has not won the battle." he said.

Another difficulty for National in the law-and-order issue was that there was no clear difference between the parties. All agreed that law and order was important.

Mr Mcßobie said he had spoken to many "basically National-oriented people" who saw through the Government’s use of law and order as an issue.

If an election were called the Springboks would have to be sent home, he said. However, that would mean that the catalyst for the confrontation had been removed. After its refusal to withhold visas from the team, the Government could not withdraw visas. It would have to instruct the Rugby Union to stop the tour.

If National won an election on a law-and-order platform the “inevitable consequence” would be the introduction of measures to control protesters. This had been done in 1951 with the Public Safety Conservation Act.

A lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Canterbury, Mr P. A. Joseph, said law and order would be a “non issue," because all parties agreed on the principle.

While it was traditional for the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister, the procedure was not legally defined.

Normally Parliament would be dissolved for an early election only if the Government had ' lost its majority or lost the confidence of the people — not so in this case.

The implications for the next three years if the National Party won a snap election on a law-and-order platform would be serious, said Mr Joseph. The Springbok tour issue would pass but the Government would be seen to have been elected for another three-year term on that single issue. It would also change the pattern of elections. Parliament could run for only a three-year term. If the Government were elected in September this year it would have to go back to the polls

in September, 1984. unless legislation was introduced to extend its term, which would set a dangerous precedent. Mr Palmer agreed that the Springboks would have to leave New Zealand if a snap election were called. The police could not cover both the Springbok matches and an election campaign. The law-and-order platform could backfire on the Government because it knew long before the Springboks arrived that there would be disorder. “Allowing this tour to go ahead was an act of incitement in itself," he said. An election based on law’ and order w'ould be a “massive diversion" from the economic issues facing New’ Zealand. Mr Palmer said he believed Labour would win if a snap election were called. Labour Party policy had been finished and the party

was well advanced with its campaign plans. Mr Beetham agreed with Mr Palmer that a snap election was unlikely. Mr Beetham said it would not make a great deal of difference to his party if an early election were called. However, he believed Mr Muldoon had miscalculated on the law’-and-order issue

“If he thinks the public s so unsophisticated as to regard it as a law-and-order thing, he is wrong. Economic things will not be pushed into the background," he said.

An ironic twist if the Government called an early election would be that in some electorates National Party candidates would have already spent the $4OOO allowed within three months of an election. The National Party had been spending a huge amount of money in some electorates, he said.