COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL LABOUR VICTORY WILL MEAN SEVERAL CABINET CHANGES

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33966, 6 October 1975, Page 14

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL LABOUR VICTORY WILL MEAN SEVERAL CABINET CHANGES

(By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY)

WELLINGTON, October s.—ln the event of a Labour victory on November 29 the Prime Minister (Mr Rowling) is likely to lose no time in accomplishing something which he has refrained from doing so far — the building of a Cabinet which is more adjusted to his way of doing things.

Since Mr Rowling took office in September last year there have been many indications that some Ministers appointed to serve under Mr Kirk have found it difficult to adjust under the change and that others may not have come up to expectations. Apart from these factors the Prime Minister of December, 1975, will be forming a team for the immediate future rather than attempting to repair the past. Taking over after the shock and deprivation of Mr Kirk’s death Mr Rowling faced a difficult situation. It was open to him to make massive changes. But these could have destroyed Labour as a cohesive political force. His decision to make as few changes as possible and carry on was a wise one.

Some senior Ministers became very used to working on their own under Mr Kirk without consultation and sometimes without reference to other Ministers. At the other end of the scale are junior Ministers who have been untested and who may show the need now of a discipline they did not get in the early stages. Man in charge

Under the system which serves New Zealand as a constitution, the Prime Minister has complete charge. He is also the ultimate repository of all portfolios, and may take back a portfolio from a Minister temporarily or permanently as he sees fit.

Some Prime Ministers made a regular practice of this. Sir Sidney Holland, for instance, would sometimes have as many as three or four portfolios on his table at one time, often for only a few hours. It was part of the Prime Minister’s control of government as he saw it.

In his 13 months as Prime Minister Mr Rowling has never taken back a portfolio. In his view a Minister is appointed to do a job and is expected to do it though some firm advice and a bit of direct assistance may be necessary. This has extended to the help of other Ministers or staff members. A curious difference has grown up between National and Labour Governments. On the National side it is believed that as the Prime Minister requires assistants from the ranks of Government members, then he should be permitted to select his own helpers who become Ministers.

But Labour adds an extra democratic stage. The Government members assembled in caucus select the Prime Minister’s team from among their own ranks. The caucus nominates the team but the

i Prime Minister is still left to [fit the score or so members i chosen into his own pattern •of portfolios and other | Cabinet posts available. Caucus power Thus in a Labour Government caucus has a power which its National opposite number lacks. The present Labour caucus, for instance, consists of 55 members, including Mr Rowling, the Speaker and Mr Watt in London. It consists of new members, old members, Ministers and back-benchers. Under these circumstances it would be surprising if every caucus vote was for the cotnomn good. Older but unpreferred members tend to stand together against the' aspirations of newly-arrived bright boys, and preferment has often gone to the middle-of-the-roader who neither inspires nor abrades. It has been said that the National system is dictatorial in that a Prime Minister could discard a sound Ministerial candidate on grounds of personal dislike or appoint a nonentity under the "Old Chums Act ” But the caucus vote system can be just as discriminatory, and after all it is the Prime Minister under the British system who forms the Government. Caucus has its own discrimination. The older unpreferred members have been known to close their ranks ! In his first three years as a! member the new arrival! traditionally will not get pre-1 ferment. In his subsequent! years he may be passed over in the vote for no discernible reason except personal bias. An example of this kind of loss to the Cabinet is in the failure of Mr J. K. Hunt (Lab., New Lynn) to make the caucus Cabinet list. Mr Hunt is highly intelligent, has a logical mind, and at present is making a reputation on both sides of the House as a firm and fairminded acting Speaker. Perhaps he will make his long delayed Cabinet debut in December. Grey areas

Mr Rowling has been plagued with difficulties at both ends of his Cabinet. At the top end there are Ministers who will express a personal viewpoint rather than confine their remarks to the well-trodden areas of Cabinet decision. The views of the Minister of Justice and AttorneyGeneral (Dr Finlay) on the Sutch arraignment and on other subjects may be remembered. More recently we have had the situation in which the Minister of Finance (Mr Tizard) has continued to preach the inevitability of petrol rationing, while both the Minister of Energy Resources (Mr Freer) and the Prime Minister deny any such need or intention. The illogicality of Mr Tizard’s utterances can be realised when it is known that they come from a minimum of Cabinet discussion. The statements were made several times last week, the Cabinet discussion takes place tomorrow, and all that has happened is that there is more anxiety than if Mr Tizard had not spoken. A similar public perplexity occurred when Mr Tizard

[gave his views on the i Security Intelligence Sen-ice during Mr Rowling's absence I overseas earlier this year. Mr Rowling, in his own (phrase, “sorted him out” on his return but a public perplexity remains. i It is unlikely that the two (senior Ministers mentioned lor the others. Messrs Freer, i Moyle, Connelly, Faulkner, | Douglas or May would be moved in any Cabinet I refurbishment, but action ! could be taken at the other lend of Cabinet. Some grumbling Here we have the enigma (of the Minister of Tourism (Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan). Three times this year her credibility has been called into question and each time grey areas have been left.

First there were the Opposition charges about the Tourist Hotel Corporation which ranged from business details to the appointment of the chairman. Then there was the allegation by another member that a private inquiry agent had followed Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan. Then there was the Minister’s allegation that a booking of the Dunedin Town Hall, made by a Maori group was cancelled in favour of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Muldoon). The private inquiry claim (has not been supported by evidence. The Town Hail (charge is not verified by the (bookings. Mrs TirikateneISullivan denies interviewing i a specific reporter but admits speaking to a photographer and reporter. The whole area is confused. Possibly what concerns Mr Rowling most is Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan’s apparent flair for failing to dispose of an uncomfortable situation. Other Ministers have troubles and end up by reaching some sort of agreement. Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan does not admit her original statement about the Town Hall booking. It is unlikely that the Labour caucus will be prepared to relinquish its right to choose Cabinet Ministers. Obviously there must be ways for a Prime Minister to ensure he gets the right team. Mr Peter Fraser or Sir Walter Nash would surely have found their way round the Labour system.

There have been caucus grumblings about a number of Cabinet members, including Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan, the Minister of Education (Mr Amos), the Minister of Transport (Sir Basil Arthur), the Minister of Immigration (Mr Colman), the Minister of Defence (Mr Fraser), the Minister of Maori Affairs (Mr Rata), the Minister of Social Welfare (Mr King) and the Minister of Electricity (Mr Bailey). But can Mr Rowling insist that the names chosen by caucus should be related to the tasks in view? Can he even make out his own preferred list as one Labour Prime Minister did, and if so, who in caucus could stand against it? Can all those named hold their positions against the Class of ’72? As Mr Rowling has a habit of saying, after November it will be a new ball game.

Across 1 and 19 Across — Not the sort of conversation associated with crooks. (8, 4) 5— See 22 Across. 9— See 18 Across. 10— Vetted and shown to the public. (8) 11— Courier included in languid excursions. (5) 12— Everybody after this month to invest in an office. (7) 13— Is he the first to do the firing on board? (7, 6) 18 and 9 Across—Tolerates a bit of banter, but is not required to be attentive! (6, 2,4) 19— See 1 Across. 20— Kind of defence not produced by factory operatives. (7) 21— Kind of joint that goes to the bishop's head. (5) 22 and 5 Across—The sort of weapons needed for a mass ride. (4-4) 23—Gave evidence when the date is changed about the trial. (8) Down 2— Defame a peace treaty about the present dav. (7) 3— In the morning, finished and corrected. (7) 4 — Is it worn by the rider when shin-kicking? (7, 6) 6— Pillage—the short answer lies in medieval torture. (7) 7— He backs a horse. (7) 8— The estate is ruined by a lot of old crocks, maybe! (3-3) 13— They are meant to instruct the French boys. (7) 14— Date-pad made suitable for this clue. (7) 15— Entrance? (6) 16— Gets bastion destroyed. (7) 17 — Increase the general disorder. (7) (Solution tomorrow) Saturday’s solution Across: 1, Spells; 4, Whiter; 9, No time to spare; 10, Learned; 11, Ensue; 12, Samba; 14, Usury; 18. Erato; 19, Refusal; 21, Accommodating, 22, Pastry; 23, Feints.

Down: 1, Single; 2, Extravagances; 3, Lemon; 5, Hostess; 6. Transgression: 7, Reeled; 8. Etude; 13, Bloomer; 15, Decamp; 16, Groom; 17, Aligns; 20, Flare.