General Election

Press, 4 December 1981, Page 12

General Election

Sir.—During the campaign, the bias of the media became more and more obvious. Thursday's "Eye Witness” TV programme treated Mr Rowling with unconcealed reverence, the Prime Minister’s better points grudgingly. But on Saturday night any pretence of disinterest disappeared as the early results failed to show the swing against the Government the commentators had fondly anticipated. The 3ZB announcers’ voices and phrasing betrayed their hopes, as they searched desperately for any returns favouring Labour. “It looks as though we were wrong about Rangiora” was admitted dejectedly: Quigley had “squeaked" in — by 700-plus. Acceptance that National was progressing towards a “workable majority” was reluctant, and glowing satisfaction showed when the trend emerged towards a “hung Parliament.” Not only are they unprofessional in allowing their bias to show, but their collective commonsense is in doubt, to be so universally committed to an extremism the country is too realistic to follow.—Yours, etc. P. J. OAKLEY. December 1, 1981. Sir,—l agree with the observations of Mr David Frith, of Auckland Federated Farmers, under the heading: “No party gained much from the election,” (“The Press,” December 3). New Zealanders have voted against both the Labour and National parties and have not given Socred the seats they wanted. As Mr Frith says, “they knew what they did not want but not what they wanted.” In voting against one party, people voted for another, and so fell into the same trap. Many of those who voted must have been disillusioned with party politics, but either could not or would not see the alternative. The service provided by the Tax Reduction Integrity Movement is the best alternative I can see because it does not rate candidates according to their party bias. It provides a good picture of what each candidate stands for personally, giving voters an opportunity to use their votes for something other than vague party promises.—Yours, etc., DOUG BAYLISS. December 3, 1981. Sir,—L. J. Robinson (December 2) seems to have misconstrued the points raised in my letter. These were not intended to discredit proportional representation — a system which I believe has a lot of merit, but rather examine its suitability for New Zealand. Evaluation for this reason should be based on New Zealand factors such as population and its distribution, geographical layout and the existing political parties, rather than overseas experience. My letter was concerned with the role of Social Credit as a third party, because proportional representation in New Zealand would mean, in effect, placing the power in the hands of three parties rather than two. If the third party proved to be only a protest vote and was not really taken seriously then obviously there is no need for proportional representation, since you would still only have two effective parties. For this reason then, proportional representation suitability for New Zealand can be measured by the

performances of Social Credit in a parliament where their vote will be valuable.—Yours, etc BRIAN WILSON. December 2, 1981.