Ballot turning against lan Shearer?

Press, 12 July 1984, Page 13

Ballot turning against lan Shearer?

Of all the Waikato seats, Hamilton East is the most likely prospect for a shift to Labour. Internal party strife, erosion of the Government’s support, a popular New Zealand Party candidate, the strongest Labour candidate Hamilton has seen possibly in 30 years and, last but not least, the freethinking attitude of the Waikato are all conspiring to unseat the Minister for the Environment, Dr lan Shearer.

Held by Dr Shearer for the last 8% years, Hamilton East looks safer on paper than the neighbouring western seat, to which National’s controversial Mr Michael Minogue has clung tenaciously since 1975. But it has that very quality which sets Mr Minogue apart — regarded as contrariness by his opponents and as independence by his supporters — which is likely to make Labour’s task that much harder in Hamilton West than in Dr Shearer’s electorate across the river.

The Waikato prides itself on its free-thinking, independent approach and, as a region of selfemployed, successful, and prosperous business people, that is perhaps understandable. It was that quality that made Social Credit attractive enough to secure second place in the 1981 Election in the neighbouring rural seats of Matamata, Waipa, Kajmai, Haurski, and Franklin, Sjid a close

third in Waikato and Raglan. The same quality has given the New Zealand Party an avenue into the electorate, displacing Social Credit’s appeal in Hamilton city — though not in the surrounding country seats — an seriously threatening Dr Shearer’s base of support. Although Dr Shearer entered Parliament with as feisty a reputation as Mr Minogue or Waipa’s retiring member, Ms Marilyn Waring, his elevation to Cabinet has been accompanied by a change in style — more cautious and perhaps less negative in approach. The change appears to appeal to an older, hard-core National supporter in Hamilton, but sits less easily with a younger electorate, which admires Mr Minogue for his frequent clashes with Sir Robert Muldoon.

While this has left the New Zealand Party’s high-profile candidate, Mrs Margaret Evans, the city’s deputy mayor and highest polling local body candidate last October, with a potential support base, from which she can take advantage of any swing within the National Party against its present style of Government, it has nothing to do with the strained relations between Dr Shearer and his local party machine. National Party organisers are noticeably less than enthusiastic in supporting Dr Shearer’s re-election efforts this years. Their differences with Dr Shearey go back to his

By

abortive attempt to secure the party’s nomination late last year in the safer, redrawn Waikato seat. The move left Hamilton East Nationals smarting, claiming they had not been consulted, but having to accept Dr Shearer back as their candidate when he withdrew his bid for Waikato.

Organisers were also rankled that Dr Shearer’s move received publicity in time to allow the Labour Party to place a strong

MIKE HANNAH

candidate in Hamilton East, rather than in Hamilton West, where Mr Bill Dillon originally intended to stand.

Even National supporters concede that Mr Dillon is possibly Labour’s strongest candidate in the last 30 years, notwithstanding the fact that Labour held the two city seats between 1972 and 1975. He is well-known in the city, has been a long-time member of the regional

harbour board, with involvement in sporting and public bodies, and appeals as a responsible, experienced candidate. In a part of the city in which party organisers readily admit that religious affiliations play a role in local politics, Mr Dillon’s reputation as a staunch Catholic is expected to gain support. In the previous election, the potential Catholic vote was split between Labour and Social Credit; both then had Catholic candidates. Labour’s offer to consult ordinary people before making policy decisions — a promise which is helping the party make inroads in other electorates — may carry little weight in Hamilton. A city of self-employed, mainly small business people, Hamilton tends to treat anything that smacks of a “national” or, more significant, “State” interference, with suspicion. Nevertheless, Mr Dillon may benefit from a concern that growth in parts of the local building, transport, and retail trades has not been as spectacular as it has been in more prosperous times. In Hamilton West, Mr Minogue has shown a remarkable ability to cling on to the seat, in spite of a reputation for neglecting his electorate duties. His 1981 majority was 1138, on redrawn boundaries. In National’s favour in Hamilton West is the fact Mr Minogue is opposed by weaker New Zealand g

Party and Labour Party candidates than is Dr Shearer. Labour has a presentable candidate’ in Mr Trevor Mallard, a teacher, but the party’s efforts are concentrated more obviously on Hamilton East. Similarly, the New Zealand Party candidate, Mr N. O’Malley, does not have the high profile enjoyed by Mrs Evans across the river. Mr Minogue may have lost some support for his stand on the Government’s delicensing of the transport industry. Trucking firms in Hamilton — one of the main road transport centres in the North Island, providing an arterial route from Auckland to southern markets, and trucking services for the surrounding dairy industry — regarded Mr Minogue’s stance as favouring the rail system. However, as Labour’s transort policy even more stubbornly supported protection of the rail system, any discontent on this issue would have to benefit the minor parties. Although Mr Minogue’s reputation for carrying out his electoral duties suffers by comparison with Dr Shearer’s image as an active member, he has a loyal and dedicated organisation prepared to cover for his absences — a factor Mr Minogue recognised and paid tribute to when he explained why he would not follow the example of the member for Rangiora, Mr Derek Quigley, and resign from Parliament.