The Richardson approach

Press, 20 February 1986, Page 12

The Richardson approach

Sir,—The only one of the five points quoted with which I would take issue is the one dealing with old age. It would appear that if Miss Richardson had her way the shiftless and the improvident be reduced to beggary.

■Picture the Square, with perhaps a couple of dozen elderly “hasbeens, if-they-ever-weres” cadging from all and sundry. Put them in jail? It would cost more to keep them there than to pay them an age benefit. What then? I am reminded of what an elderly and wealthy “society lady” said to my mother during the depression of the 19305: “Old people cold and hungry? Well, they’ve had their day, and their chances, and it seems they’ve squandered both. Take them to the zoo and feed them to the lions and tigers.” The good lady was not being facetious; she was “deadly” serious. Of course, we could always bring back the nineteenth century poorhouse. Not much of a choice, is it? — Yours, etc., L. A. H. BOGREN. February 18, 1986.

Sir,—While I agree that it is time for a more independent attitude to emerge in this country, I am appalled at the lengths to which the National Party is prepared to go to enforce this. The New Zealand I hope to see is not a place where a young girl can be made to consent to adoption of her baby, or, as Miss Richardson is strongly pro-abor-tion, presumably offered this alternative. Her prescription sounds like a return to the horrors and evils of the Victorian era — one law for the haves, and a totally different law for the have-nots. If this is the new National philosophy a great many people in New Zealand will stay at home next polling day; and I suggest that a great number of them will be the 37 per cent that usually vote National. — Yours, etc., J. SIMMONDS. February 18, 1986.

Sir,—We are told that societies are judged by their attitudes to their young and old members. Hopefully we will not base our policies oh those which Miss Ruth Richardson proposes in “The Press” today. The one which chiefly concerns me is, “any girl under 16 who had a baby would be required to have it adopted, out.” Miss Richardson must be aware of the overwhelming weight of evidence which surfaced during the buildup to the amendments to the adoption laws. This evidence would negate her proposal. I suggest acurrent source of enlightened information about adoption isjfeely: available, and. should be studied. — Yours, etc., LORNA ANKER. February.!B,l9B6.

Sir,—-Ruth. Richardson’s ideal welfare system (February 18) is chilling. As' a direct result of her proposals we’ ,should see, for example, young mothers bearing and raising % their children in secrecy to kqep, them working as they would probably be unable to afford adequate child care. Not all young mothers see as the best outcome of their pregnancy, the ' solving- of another’s infertility problem. Competing with softy mums and many under-20s prepared to work for very little, perhaps illegally, the family breadwinner with few .market--able skills would be bringingdependants all over the country as required, perhaps for imset-'. tling short periods, or living apart from. them. And, no doubt, worrying providing for old

age at the same time. Miss Richardson should at least think about building the traditional fence at the top of her cliff before replacing hotels with thin mattresses. — Yours, etc., JACINTA O’REILLY. February 18, ; 1986. Sir,—How interesting to read of Ruth Richardson's concept of individual freedom — the forced removal of workers to other areas and jobs (regardless of personal circumstances), should they want to continue to eat; the “requirement” that any girl under 16 be forced to hand over her child for adoption. All this is presumably in the honourable pursuit of the almighty dollar. When will the "new look” National Party take the next logical and very small step — labour camps for the would-be unproductive; the "final solution" for those elderly who dared to squander on the T.A.B. and pubs; and, of course, for the infirm and handicapped who serve no useful function but bludge on the productive entrepreneurial elite. — Yours, etc., E. SUTHERLAND. February 18, 1986.