Mr Quigley’s resignation

Press, 17 June 1982, Page 16

Mr Quigley’s resignation

, Sir,—During past controversies involving Mr Muldoon he seemed to have the unique gift of assessing the public’s view without the back-up of any polling figures. Comments he made during “Eyewitness” regarding Mr Quigley’s forced resignation suggest, however, that he even failed to understand Mr Quigley’s point of view, the view of a. member of his Cabinet and therefore, it seems, a close associate. How, I wonder could he possibly understand the public’s view on various matters if he fails to understand his own Cabinet Ministers. — Yours, etc., V. KOLLER. June 15, 1982.

. Sir,—l am a contemporary of the Prime Minister and have similar qualifications. A close reading of the text of Mr Quigley’s speech to the Young Nationals and an appraisal of Mr Quigley’s performance on television clearly indicates that the Prime Minister has been very unfair in forcing Mr Quigley to resign. It appears that it would be better for the National caucus to choose members of Parliament worthy of being Ministers of the Crown rather than the Prime Minister picking his team. While Mr Muldoon remains as Prime Minister this more democratic process of choosing leaders is, perhaps unlikely to happen but the change is needed P.D.Q. I have always voted National believing that party stands for..the rights, of the individual; —! Yours, etc., J. R. ALLISON. June 16, 1982. Sir, — What an amazing reason a National Cabinet Minister needs for resignation. There was no resignation from the unwise or extremely unwise, the visibly ■ incompetent or the failed miracle workers. The one who resigns- is the one who expresses the public attitude most clearly, when the truth is unpalatable to the Government. While Mr Muldoon claims that the growth strategy ensured their re-elec-tion, the real reason was the rural vote for a game. Sixty percent of the electorate voted for parties which would cancel or reconsider much of National’s “Think Big” programme. It is still not fully understood. The Government claims that our internal needs require a high dam at Clyde, yet still pursue new partners for the second smelter which would also need that power. We are now going heavily into debt for the Mobil plant, which can easily be proved unnecessary. The Cabinet deserves a 'fate worse than mere embarrassment. — Yours, etc., . R. HARMAN. June. 15, 1982. Sir, — It is a sad commentary on the quality of our present leadership when an honest and courageous man is ■forced to resign for sharing with the public, his views on Government policy. Is our present leader now to be surrounded by a crew of "yes meh,” afraid to step out of line, for fear of similar retribution?

Mr Quigley’s desire to let the people of this country have an opportunity to question the important- decisions being made on their behalf, has cost him his job. The editorial comment that Mr Muldoon and Mr Quigley were determined, or fated, to rid themselves of each other, may indeed be . well stated. In the final analysis, the people of this country have the means at their disposal to decide the type of man they wish to rid themselves of. Do we want leaders of honesty and integrity, or petty dictators, who will not tolerate the questioning and discussion of vital issues? — Yours, etc., PETER O'REILLY. June 15, 1982. Sir,—Derek Quigley? “Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look" . .'. “Such men as he be never at heart's ease whiles they behold a greater than themselves, and therefore are they very dangerous.” Shakespeare says it all!—Yours, etc., N. FORREST. June 16, 1982.

Sir,—After Mr Derek Quigley’s forced resignation as a senior Minister, I am seriously concerned for the future of the . National Party. His contribution over the last ,30 years, including six years excellent representation of the Rangiora electorate, has been extremely underestimated by our Prime Minister, who must accept responsibility for this shocking blow to our party. Mr Quigley’s ■ comments ,in the last few weeks were supportive of Government policy, but outlined clearly the need for the public to be better informed on the ' growth strategy. Mr Muldoon’s interpretation of his statement will be seen as a deliberate, selfish deranking of a very' capable gentleman from the Cabinet. My sincere hope is that members of Parliament will take a strong stand and demand Mr Quigley's immediate reinstatement, for the good of the National Party and New Zealand. — Yours, etc.,JOHN C. SMITH. Rangiora, June 15, 1982. Sir,—l would like to knpw what Mr Muldoon is trying to cover up when he has to sack his most able Cabinet Minister for suggesting more public discussion on “think big.” — Yours; etc., ... R. J. BENNETT. / Swannanoa, June 15, 1982-. Sir,—Over recent years we have seen the development of a dictatorship. First news reporters are dismissed after clashing, with the Prime Minister. Then we see the resignation of a judge because he did not come to the “right” conclusion. Then changes are proposed in the laws that do not fit the Muldoon scheme of things. Now we see the forced resignation of a Minister of the Crown who dared to discuss the pros and cons of Government projects in a democratic fashion, where matters debated openly and honestly can lead to the best solutions for the benefit of all. A Minister of the Crown is easily dismissed. Is it so easy to dismiss a dictator? — Yours, etc.,. G. L. JEFFERY. Rangiora, June 14, 1982. Sir—Mr Quigley said it all: “I don't., believe we have enough opportunities to participate in (the) decision-making process here in New Zealand.” : That “we” includes the’people, Parliament, the Government caucus, and even the Cabinet — although the last two are supposed to exercise control. Proof? Our: omnipotent leader decided to sack Mr Quigley with reference to no-one. . “I merely informed my Deputy Prime Minister of my decision” — and Cabinet meekly acquiesced, If Mr Quigley resigns his seat and Labour wins Rangiora and the Government falls New Zealand would then quickly be rid of the Finance

Minister and Prime Minister. I hope Mr Quigley will remain on the back benches, and — dare one hope? — even. be joined by one or two Cabinet colleagues who, in resigning their portfolios, prove they also have principles and courage. — Yours, etc., 1 ERIC TATE. June 15. 1982. Sir,—The reported comment by the Minister of Maori Affairs on the “growth strategy" (“The Press," June 15) seems to be at least as “treasonable” as Mr Quigley’s speech. Mr Couch said: “If we do not watch it, we will be spending more money there ..than where it should go, to keep other industries such as agriculture, or forestation” (sic). Is he to be asked to resign, or does he not constitute a threat to the Prime Minister? — Yours, etc., DAVID W. COLLINS. . June 16, 1982.