The Richardson approach

Press, 25 February 1986, Page 18

The Richardson approach

Sir, —I applaud Ruth Richardson for her courage in reintroducing the concept of personal incentive and initiative, and less reliance on the all-pervasive Welfare State. Such a concept is anathema to socialists, so it is not surprising, in this sixth decade of cradle-to-grave socialism in New Zealand, that her remarks have drawn such emotional response from your readers. Incentive is a forgotten term in the Kiwi vocabulary, burdened as we are with a massive bureaucracy which is becoming increasingly covert in its taxation ploys. Rather than providing hope and freedom from worry, the overgrown Welfare State encourages waste and criminal activity. Witness the increasing amount of violent crime indulged in by those who are taxpayer funded to do nothing. I hope that the National Party has the integrity and courage to begin to implement such policies as Ruth Richardson has suggested.—Yours, etc.,

M. F. O’BRIEN. February 21, 1986.

Sir,—Ruth Richardson considers she is a liberal. My Oxford dictionary defines a liberal as “generous, open handed, open minded, unprejudiced” etc. The reforms she is suggesting are horrific, and abhorrent to any person who really is a liberal. Her attack on the aged, unfortunate young mothers, and similar is all the more detestable because she is a woman and mother herself, albeit a financially privileged one. Ruth Richardson was, and is one of the most vociferous voices in the anti-Sir Robert Muldoon brigade. Sir Robert does care for the ordinary bloke and “blokess.” For heaven’s sake let his voice be heard on the front benches before we drift into complete chaos and despair.—Yours, etc.,

ALEX HOGGAN. February 20, 1986.

Sir,—Academics comprising 90 per cent of both main parties can speak for hours and say nothing. The confusing phrases

which bulked the article on Ruth Richardson are meaningless. This is proved in that only the little bit of “nitty gritty” understood by everyone, and appearing at the end of a long article has brought a torrent of letters against “National’s New Breed.” I can see no more future in the McLay-Richardson team than in Muldoonism or the Sunday Club. Her “emerging as the chief theoretician of ideological purity” allows her to support legalised sodomy. Dodging any mention of this main issue is why the concerned majority are attending meetings all over the Selwyn electorate to find a new National candidate. Moral issues apart, the mess we are in now surely proves the day is here, and the time is now to prepare to replace academics with candidates of proven business ability.—Yours, etc.,

GRAY HENDERSON. Sheffield, February 22, 1986.

Sir,—Ruth Richardson has made a courageous stand in advocating an attitude of selfreliance and responsibility for one’s actions, and less dependence on the Welfare State. Some of her proposals are controversial, but I was sorry to see that a few people found it necessary to retaliate with personal abuse and various distortions which may mislead those who missed reading the article itself. That "people need to be educated to be independent and rewarded for it” is actually a fundamental law of nature and of mental health. It did not read to me as though Miss Richardson was advocating “a return to the horrors and evils of the Victorian era” but was squarely facing the horrors and evils of today. Consider the living planet or the history of the world and you will see that there is no guarantee of a stressfree or perfect society. However, some things will always be good, and self-reliance is one of them.—Yours, etc., J. TURNER. February 23, 1986.

Sir, — “The Press” is performing a good service in publicising the policies of the Selwyn M.P., Ruth Richardson, and the reactions of the community to the “Richardson approach.” It is a widely held belief in the Beehive that Miss Richardson will undoubtedly become the National Party leader in the not-too-distant future, so it is important that her views and opinions be known to the electorate at large, especially to those who are looking for an alternative to Labour. I believe Miss Richardson to be by far the most able Opposition M.P. at present, and it is difficult to avoid a comparison with Britain’s Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. However, even Britain’s “Iron Lady” is not so Draconian in her campaign to dismantle the Welfare State as is Miss Richardson, and I can understand how some of your elderly readers are apprehensive of the “New Look National Party” and its savage application of a pruning knife to Social Welfare. — Yours, etc., R. L. PLUCK. Tai Tapu, February 21, 1986.

Sir, — The Richardson philosophy, as set out in the article of February 18 is a recipe for total disaster for the people of New Zealand, if Ruth Richardson ever gets the chance to realise it. Her

system is not "radically different,” for “market means” as an economic system suffered its death-knell in the Wall Street crash of January, 1929. The private enterprise capitalist system is not viable without massive State support, financial and legislative. Her political philosophy under all the fine talk of “freedom of choice in financial affairs, industrial unionism, education and health” would benefit only the class which her party represents. Her “freedom of choice in industrial unionism” means freedom not to belong to a union, but would she be so enthusiastic to scrap State interference in industrial relations, the legislation that now trammels, hamstrings, and hog-ties unions in their relations with the employers? — Yours, etc.,

M. CREEL. February 24, 1986.

Sir, — I applaud the recent article on Ruth Richardson and her philosophies. A Government that tries to be a benevolent society and give everything to everybody will never succeed in the long run. If you reward people by handing out welfare benefits, more people will jump on the band waggon, and eventually most people will be recipients of benefits sometime in their life. I think that I am kindhearted and I believe it is kinder to let people be responsible for their own actions, than to give them everything they need ; from an outside source, for which they do nothing in return. People who are responsible can have dignity. Families used to look after their own members in need, be they the elderly or an unmarried mother, and likewise worthy organisations such as the Salvation Army. This way a far better

job was done at a fraction of the cost and we all paid a lot less tax. We need a return to this basis and Ruth Richardson is heading in the right direction. — Yours, etc.,

SALLY COUPER. February 21, 1986.

Sir,—-Three hearty cheers for Ruth Richardson, and the Richardson philosophy. Socrates once said “If all our misfortunes were lumped together with everyone forced to take an equal share, people would be glad to take back their own.” I believe the time has come for New Zealanders to reverse the flow of the country’s direction to the true and natural state of individual sovereignty. How long people wish to delay the attainment of this ideal is directly in proportion to how much more misery they are willing to tolerate. Let us make Individual sovereignty the catch-call of the eighties and beyond. — Yours, etc., TERRY O’CAIN. V February 24, 1986.

Sir,—l too read the article on Ruth Richardson’s philosophy etc., with bewilderment and almost disbelief and immediately thanked my lucky stars that she, was not the leader of the National Party, was not in Government and most of all, that I was not Jewish, Polynesian, un-’ employed or a female who suffers from human weaknesses. What worries me more than anything is that if this woman is able to put her beliefs into practice I might be held responsible because I let her beat me in: the 1981 election. — Yours, etc., W. E. WOODS. Springfield, February 22, 1986.