Labour’s effort to educate electorate

Press, 12 June 1978, Page 16

Labour’s effort to educate electorate

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr W. E. Rowling) presented his economic alternative to the Budget last Tuesday night, he was making a sharp departure from traditional Labour policy. By choosing, electors now have two Budgets to study instead of one. Thus he incurred the possibility, feared by earlier Labour Opposition leaders, that an Opposition proposal would be used to disarm criticism of the Government’s Budget.

He has done so quite deliberately in the name of education. “The electors have a right to know what the alternatives are,” he told me. “There is no real sense in keeping our policies a secret until the last moment, as in other days. People must be encouraged to see us as the alternative, and to study what we propose.” He corrected me when I suggested that he had deCarted from Labour tradition y putting up a counter-Bud-get. “What I presented was a clear alternative to the philosophy in the Budget,” he explained. "It w’ould be ridiculous to suggest that an Opposition is in a position to present something which is a full opposite to a Budfet. A Government, backed y all the powers of Govern-

ment departments, with all the up-to-date statistics at their disposal, is the only body which can really frame a Budget.” The Opposition had worked in the strict economic sphere “as opposed to social development and those other functions which constitute the reason for having a Budget,” Mr Rowling said. “What we have done in the strict economic sphere is come forward and say that we think the Government is heading in the wrong direction, and we have set out the basic economic reasons why we think this.”

(Issued to be read in con» junction with Mr Rowling’s speech was a slim, redcovered volume entitled “The Alternative,” and sub-titled “An Economic Statement by the Rt Hon. W. E. Rowling.” In it was clearly stated that it did not cover education, health, social welfare, and other aspects, but that Labour’s commitment was total.)

“It was styled ‘Budget’ not by us but by some elements of the news media,” Mr Rowling said. “I can understand that, because of its

timing, and because of his philosophy. This is not a complete opposite to National’s philosophy, but something quite fundamentally different in a number of respects to the philosophical approach of the present Government.”

He agreed that it was a Labour “first,” adding: “I believe that what we’ve done this time is establish something that will be followed by Oppositions in the future, so that people are able to build towards the election situation with a greater degree of knowledge of what it is all about.”

Mr Rowling spoke of the not-so-old days when the parties used to hold back until the opening of the election campaign. I reminded him of the Labour tradition of never setting up a “shadow Cabinet,” and of never stating what the party’s detailed policies were, for fear that the Government would steal the Opposition’s thunder, or simply criticise the Opposition’s plans instead of defending its own.

“There was substance in those fears,” Mr Rowling admitted. “We learned some sharp lessons in 1968, when

Norman Kirk was the Party Leader and I was the President, and we released a number of significant policy aspects, for the 1969 election. “We found that a good deal of that was either fairly heavily rebutted, or, more importantly still, was taken over by the then Government as part of their own policy. Some they enacted before the election, which left us with fewer feathers . . .

“On the other hand, it seems to us that there is a time when the Opposition, as the alternative Government, ought properly to lay the foundations on which it expects to build that Government, so that people may have a fair basis for comparisons. The earlier times when parties maintained secrecy until the last minute are long gone. The electorate, in its present stage of maturity, wants time to make a fair comparison.” He emphasised that this would not stop. He predicted “the most outrageous statements” coming from Mr Muldoon over the next few weeks about the alleged cost of various moves in the Labour Party’s manifesto. “He had a good practice in

1972. I am sure he’ll put out his old notes and use them again. But I believe the public will not be impressed by noise. Many people will study the bases, will make mature judgments, and will influence others.”

Mr Rowling likened a modern election to a court situation rather than a circus-ring, ending with the summing-up of the case by the major contestants. I reminded him that portions of his economic summation had already received harsh treatment from Mr Muldoon. For instance, the idea of a levy on overseas exchange was strongly criticised by Mr Muldoon on television last Tuesday night after the

booklet had been released, but actually before he (Mr Rowling) had made his speech. "This is a very carefully thought-out proposal, not a gimmick,” Mr Rowling told me. “What we have said is that the present Government is irresponsible, in that it is promising the moon, when the moon is not obtainable unless you pay a deposit at least.” Labour agrees (and it was repeated by the Deputy Leader (Mr R. J. Tizard) in his Budget speech on Wednesday night) that the circumstances today a e such that a reasonable element of deficit financing is viable. Mr Rowling believes that this in itself would be insufficent if it were intended to make changes to the income-tax structure. Mr Rowling announced the idea of a levy on overseas exchange to Canterbury exporters and manufacturers some weeks ago. Mr Muldoon, therefore, had known about it for that length of time, but had chosen not to comment until last Tuesday night. Mr Rowling admits that the levy would be tantamount to a one-sided devaluation, but claims that it is superior to a complete devaluation because the Government would have control, through exemptions in the export field, in freight areas and for farm inputs and selected areas for travel.

Comment from the Capital