General Election

Press, 26 November 1981, Page 16

General Election

Sir,—Your correspondent E. Webster can vote Labour with confidence. We completely agree that accident compensation should be extended to cover all forms of permanent disability. It is quite unjust that at present the community’s response to disability depends on its cause rather’ than the needs of disabled people and their families. Labour will remove this anomaly. We will pay an income-related “incapacity” benefit to all whose disability prevents them from working. Beyond that, we certainly intend to reform the present system of accident compensation — to improve and simplify its structure as well as to extend its coverage. As it happens (through the accident of the alphabet) this is the first policy in our manifesto. If your correspondent and anyone else interested would like to approach me directly, I will be happy to provide them with a copy of Labour’s full accident compensation policy. — Yours, etc.,

DAVID CAYGILL. M.P. for St Albans. November 24, 1981.

Sir,—l last night listened to a radio talk-back programme involving the three political candidates for Selwyn electorate. A woman caller asked how long each candidate had lived in Selwyn, as she considered local knowledge of the area important. The Social Credit candidate, Jim Gribben, admitted that he lived outside Selwyn but could attend the electorate at short notice. Labour’s Bill Woods has lived, worked and raised a family in Selwyn for 18 years. The National candidate, Ruth Richardson, criticised the caller for making such an inquiry, and intimated that local residence in Selwyn was of little consequence. The woman caller was upset by this and said so when ringing off. Granted that local residence does not need to be a dominating factor, surely courtesy is not too much to ask. — Yours, etc.,

R. L. PLUCK. November 24, 1981

Sir,—Social Credit is claiming that it will reduce inflation, and reduce interest rates considerably under its “different” monetary system. In British Columbia, Canada, where the Social Credit party has had power for many years, the situation is:—(1) Currently 6.1 per cent of the work force is registered as unemployed. (2) 1565 businesses went bankrupt last year. (3) Mortgage interest rates rose from 11 per cent to 20 per cent in the last 12 months, and it is extremely difficult to renew mortgages. (4) The average price for a home in Vancouver is $158,000. This record shows that Social Credit certainly is not the answer some seem to think it is. — Yours, etc., L. BAILEY. November 23, 1981.

Sir,—The National Party having been the Government for so many years, indicates that the majority of New Zealanders are more than satisfied with the country's progress — and progress will continue. This country needs to be run in a positive-thinking, businesslike manner. National has the necessary ministerial depth and background to do this, together with tne excellent new candidates they are putting forward. Full employment requires buoyant businesses, and they in turn require a free interprise system to operate. National is the party to do this.

The other parties have neither the personnel nor the experience to govern. Labour is virtually controlled by the “Knox brigade,” and “Tania’s march” in Auckland showed us what most New Zealanders think of the unions; the Springbok tour showed us the difference between a genuine Kiwi and an anti-establishment lawbreaker. This country, in spite of claims by Labour, Social Credit and Values, is still the best place to be. — Yours, etc., GARY PRIEST. November 25, 1981.

Sir,—After three weeks of electioneering, not one of the three parties has produced a positive plan to contain inflation, the national cancer that week by week is eating the social and economic heart out of our country. Inflation’s four basic causes need urgent governmental surgery. (1) The militant disruptive greed of the unions is creating unemployment (Gear, etc.), destroying job opportunities with wage, redundancy, relativity demands and wage related price increases. (2) Excessive Government expenditure (incredible wastage here). (3) Monopolistic manufacturers, importers and distributers with their crazy profit margins (price control should be imposed immediately here.) (4) Morale. Masses of sociologists have converted much of New Zealand into a national of work-shy leaners. If National is successful it might attack these problems. Labour’s return would be disastrous with its F.O.L. and unionist bedmates and socialist government control, and Social Credit, well . . . that’s another fairy story. — Yours, etc.,

S. B. BRYANT. November 24, 1981.

Sir,—The Labour Party claims that it will fix our economy. But how can it when it chooses to ignore the fuel problems of New Zealand. Fuel costs the country over $ll OOM a year to import and our economy depends on it. The National Party recognises this problem, and is well on the path to making our country self-sufficient in oil. Then and only then can the economy be cured. The Labour Party is putting the cart before the horse. — Yours, etc., G. RODDEN. November 21, 1981.

Sir,—The article on the health election issue (“The Press,” November 19)' states “Labour goes as far as to say it wants to make health services, as far as possible, free of charge.” Could you please ask a Labour spokesman what such a free service would cost and how it would be paid for?— Yours, etc., N. F. GREENSLADE. November 20, 1981.

[Dr M. E. R. Bassett, the Labour shadow spokesman on health, replies: “The Labour Party policy to make health services cheaper, would cost about $2O million. This cost may be spread over a couple of years. Labour would like to pay the consultation fee for children up to the age of 16. It would also like to increase the general medical services benefit. The party , would generally like to provide a cheaper medical service for those over the age of 16. These changes to the medical service have been budgeted for in Labour’s financial policy.”]

Sir,—The Prime Minister’s latest “tough speech” does him no more credit than previous ones. In a last-ditch attempt to sway the people, he accuses Labour and Social Credit of negativism, Labour’s television advertising “a tissue of lies,” and maligns Mr Rowling as a leader. The “scared man,” in fact, is Mr Muldoon, otherwise he would have no need to resort to his all too familiar spiteful, childish, “mine’s better than yours” outbursts. His predecessors were above these tactics. National has had six years to prove its capabilities; the track record shows otherwise, and another National Government would place democracy and the free enterprise system in jeopardy. Pope Paul’s quotation: “Nothing is as strong as gentleness. Nothing is as gentle as strength” would sum up the attributes of a true leader — let us not be deceived in thinking that brute force is strength. — Yours, etc., ESTELLE WIN. November 25, 1981.

Sir,—The child-like visions of National’s ’.‘growth strategy” (double bluff economics?) which do nothing more than, to

borrow a phrase from George Orwell, give an appearance of substance to pure wind, yet hypnotically appeal. Funded’by massive off-shore borrowing and a paralysing tax-take, is a paralogism so typical of New Zealand’s “economic genius.” This same “genius” pours boiling oil on Social Credit’s postmaterialsm to return this country to a land of small, private enterprises which, ironically, National once stood for. People problems are far more important than gigantic, foolhardy; economic ventures that, should they fail, we all have to pay for dearly. That “power corrupts” is well founded — it also stupifies apparently. Superannuitants should feel a flicker of unease at the comment of the economics superstar, Professor Milton Friedman, suggesting a raising of the qualifying age. Good luck to Social Credit. — Yours, etc., BERNARD L. RAMS-BOTTOM-ISHERWOOD. November 23, 1981.

Sir,—Our party political Government is guilty of treating New Zealanders “en mass,” as though we were all the same, unvaryingly similar people. The trend over the last few decades is to lump all of us together and treat us as “the people,” and to forget that we are all individuals, each one unique and blessed with aspirations and beliefs of our own. (We do live in a society, and the way we conduct ourselves in that society is important, but the individual person is still most important). We can easily see this trend occurring in our Parliament. No longer is Parliament a forum for individual electoral representatives to voice the opinion of the residents in the electorate and to debate legislation. It is instead a forum for party politics, where individuality is frowned upon, and where the party dogma churned out by our party politicians is depressingly similar. — Yours, etc.,

M. J. STANLEY. November 23, 1981.