General Election

Press, 14 November 1981, Page 14

General Election

Sir,—Facts do not support J. -F. Garvey’s assertion (November 13): “The abysmal performance of the 1972-75 Labour Government is largely responsible for today’s difficulties.” Despite a severe set-back in our terms of trade (then) and a 440 per cent increase in oil costs the 1972-75 Labour Government maintained virtually full employment and a growth rate averaging 4 per

cent a year. The internal deficit was easily covered by the export boom it bequeathed to the present administration. The really abysmal performance has been from six years of National Government. With the advantage of a 350 per cent increase in export earnings and a much smaller oil price rise (130 per cent) this Government has doubled our external debt; almost trebled our internal deficit: driven 330.000 people overseas; allowed a 1500 -per cent increase in unemployment and pushed up food costs 100 per cent. With this truly dismal record. National now has. the gall to expect the elections to swallow its “growth strategy."—Yours, etc.,

M. T. MOORE. November 13. 1981.

Sir,—For the information of J. F. Garvey, who finds it very easy to quote details of inflation and also to lay all the blame on Labour, Mr Muldoon states that he is not worried about unemployment. He also states that Labour will bankrupt this country. For Mr Garvey’s benefit the bill for unemployment is approximately $3OO million a year. At this rate could he please advise' l when the bailiffs will be moving in. On the Unemployment Bill I suggest Mr Garvey has a word with Dr Brash as his thoughts coincide with those of Mr Rowling. What effect is this Bill having on our home-grown inflation? Mr Rowling's opening speech was in world class, spoken by, not a run-of-the-mill politician, but by a true statesman. — Yours, etc., J. W. PENDER. November 10. 1981.

Sir,—Your editorial of November 6 carried the heading: “Two versions of ‘Think Big’.” However, despite this title you covered only Labour Party policy in detail. More important, the editorial dressed up political opinion as fact. While you raised many salient points regarding New Zealand's future development, you neg-

lected to present to your readership an analysis of the present Government's strategies — strategies that have been questioned by the Nature Conservation Council and the august O.E.C.D. for the overcommitment of New Zealand’s resources to risky industrial paths. These developmental strategies are underpinned by a highly controversial act that strangles public participation and castrates informed opposition: I respectfully suggest that you did your readership a disservice with this editorial.— Yours, etc., JOHN CRUDEN. November 11. 1981.