Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. [Volume 39, Number 2. 11th March 1976]

Year of the Dragon, Year of the Mouse, Or Year of the Bore?

page 7

Year of the Dragon, Year of the Mouse, Or Year of the Bore?

Image of an old man in military uniform

The orientation programme (published in the last issue of Salient) promised that a debate would take place on the topic, That this house has confidence in the Government', was to have been battled out between the Young Nats and the Labour Club. Unfortunately this much-looked-forward-to encounter did not eventuate.

Instead the two or three hundred who eagerly arrived at the Union Hall in anticipation of this great event were treated (or mistreated) to a forum comprising of two of the lesser known M.P.'s in the House. On the right of Chairman Kevin Swann, was Tony Friedlander, respresenting the National Party, and, to the left, Russell Marshall, representing the Labour Party. If this seating arrangement was meant to convey some idea of the differences between the parties it certainly did not become apparent from the speeches which followed (although the respective speakers' answers to later questions did prove to be more enlightening).

Tony Friedlander opened for the Government. Obviously sensing that he was in the hotbed of academia, commenced with an introduction to Union astrology. This year, he informed us, was the year of the dragon, not the year of the mouse - (there was spontaneous applause but the incessant groans and dark looks soon shut the culprit up). Obviously encouraged by this overwhelming response (even one person clapping in a varsity audience is regarded as a feather in the cap for a new M.P.) Mr Friedlander wasted no time in displaying the other qualities he'll be taking into the House with him. He showed quite decisively that he has that same inherent ability to manipulate figures which has blessed so many of our other major politicians.

In bursts of logic, which were at times quite devastating. He was able to justify National's inflationary policies on the grounds that they were necessary to counteract the Labour inflationary policies, which in three short years had rocked N.Z. off a sound economic base (on which National apparently left us in 1972, another bloody mystification!) into the throws of economic disaster. The rest of Mr friedlanders speech was given over to explaining why the Labour Party was a spent force and suggesting ways and means of improving its popularity with the people.

Enter Russell Marshall, Labour M.P. in Wanganui (and incidentally a minister of the Church). Although sporting a much more forceful tone than his National opponent, Mr Marshall's speech was uncannily similar in style and approach. Instead of Chinese mythology and the year of the mouse we had fairy tales featuring Rip Van Muldoon who apparently woke up on November 30 1975 and promptly turned back the clock 3 years.

I have a vague suspicion that Mr Marshall had somehow got hold of some of the National Party members speeches from around 3 years ago because the charge of being 'a one man band' which levelled at the late Mr Kirk is now apparently aimed at Mr Muldoon. The Nelson by-election result of course indicates that we do not have 'N.Z. the way we want it' - or was it inevitable anyway that Labour would win the seat. Mr Marshall spent some time criticising National's advertising over the election campaign which seemed to me to be rather a pointless exercise. He did, however, come up with what may be the answer to the whole problem when comparing the actions since the election with the promises before the election, he said 'Anybody with half a brain could see what National was promising."

Towards the end of the speech, Mr Marshall managed to finally drag himself away from the National Party's policies and expound some of the philosophical principles on which the Labour Party is founded. The significance of these comments however were lost somewhere in the Union Hall amongst a steadily decreasing number of bored faces and disheartened souls.

Having made out a case for their existence as M.P.'s, questions were thrown open to the floor. There were the predictable question on various subjects - Race Relations, immigration, election results, party leadership, S.T.B., housing, nuclear powered ships - and these in turn received predictable replies.

After the speakers were given the chance to sum up the Chairman closed the meeting and the few remaining listeners rushed for the exits.

What can you say in conclusion? Mr Friedlander would have done better if he'd been out advertising one of the toothpaste brands (what a lovely smile, I bet he hasn't got breath that would stop a herd of elephants). He has a lot to learn about the political game and his handling of hecklers was amateurish, his white confident his speech while confident was sterile and monotonous. Mr Marshall, as would be expected, had more support from the floor and this made his talk a little easier than that of Mr Friedlander.

I wasn't very impressed with this forum. It was boring because it was predictable - it was inevitable that it should deteriorate into a vehicle for the general party propoganda which adorn the election pamphlets. In an election year maybe this kind of forum has its place. Otherwise, surely it is preferable to have a forum discussing specific issues and this can only be done where the respective parties are represented by people who have some knowledge of the topic under discussion.