THE PRESS TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1982. Mr Quigley’s departure

Press, 15 June 1982, Page 18

THE PRESS TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1982. Mr Quigley’s departure

Stepping out of line in politics has brought a swift and decisive interruption to the political career of the Minister of Works and Development, Mr Quigley. His speech to Young Nationals has been taken as a breach of Cabinet solidarity. Others as well as the Prime Minister have put this estimation upon it. At least a majority of the Cabinet appears to have regarded the speech as-an unfaithful act. Many people who read the speech now, after a week in which it has been the subject of public questioning, and after Mr Quigley has put his own gloss upon it in a television interview, may wonder where it departs so markedly from the Government line. The answer probably lies in the fact that Mr Quigley had to elaborate so much upon it, in his television interview on Sunday evening, to make his meaning clear - or acceptable to his Cabinet colleagues. His responses in the 1 interview amounted to a very creditable performance. Point by point, Mr Quigley was able to add a commentary on the speech that brought it pretty much into line with what the Prime Minister himself might have said. The speech itself will appeal to many people, inside and outside the National Party, though it can hardly be referred to as an alternative strategy for the Government. As a whole it might be dismissed as no more than a few philosophical reflections on the state of the Government’s policy on economic growth, rather hurriedly put together to excite discussion.

Many passages in the speech are no more than a suggestion that the Government has to improve its selling of its policies on growth. This is not the way in which it has been read by the Cabinet. The Prime Minister and other Ministers have obviously seen the speech as a root criticism of the Government and its leadership. Mr Quigley continues to deny that such criticism was intended, but stands by all he said. It is difficult, however, to read the speech and to conclude that Mr Quigley found no fault with the way the Government was

performing. It is in such questioning of the Government's performance that many people will find an accord. If Mr Quigley thought he was doing the Government a service, it became strikingly plain that he was not achieving his aim when the chairman of the Wellington Young Nationals policy group attacked the Prime Minister for his reaction to the speech. The challenging of the Prime Minister may not end there. If it has done nothing else, the speech has thrown the Government into disorder; though some may well ask whether Mr Quigley or Mr Muldoon was the greater cause of the disorder.

Mr Quigley's resignation from the Cabinet removes considerable talent from the Government. His political ambitions have been arrested. The chances of his distinguishing himself on the back benches sufficiently to reinstate himself as a senior politician are remote. Nothing less than a change of party leadership will enable his return to the Cabinet; and if the unfavourable reading of his speech was widely shared, even a change of leadership might not be sufficient.

In due course, Mr Quigley’s estimate of the Government may prove to be correct. This will not necessarily make him the wise and. far-seeing analyst of party strategy. The underlying problem is that, if he could not persuade his Cabinet colleagues to his way of thinking on Government strategy, few of them will thank him for taking his thoughts into the public arena. This is the kind of sin that neither cabinets nor party leaders forgive.

The most extraordinary aspect of the episode is that the Prime Minister could have brushed the whole speech aside and might have even adopted most of it as a version of his own thoughts on the subject. In explaining his speech, Mr Quigley might have elected to give credit to the Prime Minister. The fact that neither chose these courses drives towards the only conclusion: that the two were determined — or fated — to rid themselves of each other.