The Richardson approach

Press, 21 February 1986, Page 16

The Richardson approach

Sir,—l found the contents of the article on Ruth Richardson appalling. I would hope for National’s sake her views are not typical of the party’s philosophy. Old age beneficiaries take note — if you are poor it is probably because you have been improvident when income earners and so made no provision for yourself. What an arrogant assumption. The concept of the Welfare State brought hope and freedom from worry to New Zealanders living in a less selfish environment than the one in which Miss Richardson finds herself. True, there are anomalies in the system, but Miss Richardson’s rationale for a “rump welfare state” (her choice of words) is oppressive and without hfart. Without heart one is juspt a talking head. At 35 years pf age

Miss Richardson has ' a-- lot to learn about ,life and people; I hopd - many people read the article about ;* Miss Richardson and her philosophy and thank their lucky stars for a Labour Government. — Yours, etc., JEAN COWIE. Rakaia, February 18, 1986. Sir, —I have read the article in “The Press” headed “The Richardson philosophy” with profound disgust. If Miss Richardson’s philosophy is the epitome of the National Party under Mr McLay’s leadership, all I can say is God help the ordinary people of New Zealand. We can only continue to hope that eventually National Party members will see the light and recall Sir Robert Muldoon as leader. Miss Richardson would be a great help to President Ferdinand Marcos, of the Philippines, and many New Zealanders would be glad for her to take her philosophy and go there. — Yours, etc., A. H. STRONG. Blenheim, February 19, 1986. Sir,—l was shocked by Ruth Richardson’s punitive attitude towards people already disadvantaged. The young girl who has committed the folly of becoming pregnant and had the courage to continue with her pregnancy is, in Ruth Richardson’s ideal world, to be forced to give up her baby. The worker whose stressful, unrewarding job pays just enough to feed and house his/ her family can look forward to poverty in retirement because Ruth Richardson considers him/ her Improvident. The unemployment benefit is to be available only if the potential worker is prepared to go anywhere for a job — regardless of resultant stress on self, spouse, and children. Ruth Richardson appears a privileged Victorian lady, comfortably charitable towards the “deserving poor,” but unaware of the complexity of human needs and the often unjust inequity of wealth. It is disturbing that a person so lacking in imagination and sensitivity ■ has been elected to a position of responsibility. — Yours, etc., CATHERINE GLUE. February 20, 1986.