Canberra view of N.Z. P.M.’s performance

Press, 29 November 1978, Page 8

Canberra view of N.Z. P.M.’s performance

' NZPA Canberra The style of the New Zealand Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) and the Australian Prime Minister ( (Mr Malcolm Fraser) dif- ( fered markedly, but the I adjective, “arrogant,” applied equally to both, I the “Canberra Times'* said { in an editorial on the New ! Zealand election yesterday. “Little love is lost between the two men, but Mr Muldoon may have done his Australian counterpart a great service by demonstrating just what arrogance, and failing credibility, can do to a politician,” it commented. The outcome of the election provided an . object lesson to all politii cians of the dangers of

promising too much and talking too tough, it said. “if it wants one, the National Party need look no further for a scapegoat than the Prime Minister himself. To a remarkable degree the Government can be identified with Mr Muldoon. “As his own Finance Minister, the Prime Minister is unable to adopt the tactic, so popular in Australia during recent years, of jettisoning the treasurer when the economy is going over a rough patch. To shed the portfolio now would be to admit personal culpability. ’ Mr Muldoon, if he were sensible, would cease taking stances that turned off one section of the electorate immediately and ran the risk of dis-

illusioning others if and when it appeared he could not deliver on his promises, the editorial said. “The prognosis for New Zealand’s immediate political future is remarkably similar to Australia’s — with the significant difference that, in terms of seats to be won, Mr Rowling has a shorter distance to travel than his Australian counterpart here, Mr Hayden. “Australian Labour can take comfort from the fact that a leader often criticised for lack-lustre performance, as was Mr Rowling, can nevertheless perform respectably on the hustings when necessary,” said the “Canberra limes.”