Govt leadership not threatened

Press, 16 June 1982, Page 1

Govt leadership not threatened

NZPA political reporters Wellington The row surrounding the dismissal of the former Cabinet Minister, Mr Derek Quigley, last evening appeared, unlikely to shake the leadership of the Government. An extensive poll of the National Party backbench members of Parliament and private conversations with Cabinet Ministers showed that while many disagreed deeply with the "apologise of quit" ultimatum which saw the resignation of Mr Quigley, it was unlikely to cause a caucus rebellion against the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) or his deputy (Mr MacIntyre). One Cabinet Minister, who was closely identified .With the 1980 “colonels” attempt to depose Mr Muldoon, made it clear yesterday that he believed new moves to unseat the . Prime Minister were “not on,” partly because of the delicate political balance in Parliament. Others said the deputy leadership would remain with Mr Maclntyre until he announced his intention to retire from politics. But the unrestrained and vehement reaction from inside and outside Parliament indicated that Mr Quigley will retain a high degree of personal support, and that the resignation affair has increased the dissatisfaction with .Mr Muldoon’s leadership felt by many in the party. Several members' of Parliament made .it clear that they believed-Mr Quigley’s speech had left Mr Muldoon with no choice. But others, with some party officials, were so outspoken that it was difficult to believe they were members of the -same party as Mr Muldoon.

Inside the caucus, there was widespread disbelief

that Mr Quigley had really stepped outside the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility in his Chateau speech to the Young Nationals,, and several regarded it as a pre-emptive strike against the possibility of a future challenge, at least to the deputy leadership.

The veteran caucus rebel, Mr M. J. Minogue, said that the speech was simply a “pretext to get rid of Mr Quigley.” Calling collective responsibility a constitutional myth in an age of Prime Ministerial government, he said Mr Quigley, having lost the deputy leadership election last year, was the clear heirapparent to Mr Maclntyre. “There had to be a pretext to destroy him. Mr Quigley was not moving for the deputy leadership but he was seen as a potential threat,” he said. Mr Minogue’s line of thought was supported by the member for Invercargill, Mr N. P. H. Jones, who said that Mr Muldoon would have to “pull his head in." “I support Muldoon for leader as long as he is there, but he is going to have to face up to the fact that he cannot have everything his own way,” Mr Jones said. The Marlborough member of Parliament, Mr D. L. Kidd, said that he saw no serious conflict with Cabinet policy and intended to talk with Mr Quigley and others in the caucus. While members of the House denied any prospect of' an immediate assault on the leadership, the strength -of the. public reaction remained an unknown factor in caucus attitudes. • ' ‘ • The outcry from sections of the party, and ’what seemed to be the start of a concerted letter-writing campaign by Mr Quigley's supporters, could eventually - have an effect on individual members.

In the long term, some members- said, Mr Quigley's position may have been strengthened. Mr Quigley is seen by many as the natural leader of the “free market” faction in the caucus, and may now be quickly elevated to the leadership of the growing band of those prepared publicly to question the line pushed by Mr Muldoon. In a brief interview yesterday, Mr Quigley rejected suggestions that he be reinstated as “not at all possible,” a view shared by Mr Muldoon. One Cabinet minister said Mr Quigley had been “offside.” “But he is very popiilar as an individual, very widely respected in caucus, and he has a lot of personal support, leaving aside the speech. The reality of the situation is that the leadership is not an issue at the moment. Mr Quigley has' to use the support and feeling he has in a constructive and tangible way ... but he has to decide for himself how he wants to do that,” he said. Outside Parliament there was intense reaction from many ■ party officials, and more reaction is expected. But there have been frequent clashes in the past between Mr Muldoon and the administrators of the National Party which have left him unswayed, ignoring the party . hierarchy and preferring to rely on his political instincts. Last evening Mr Muldoon looked set to maintain that line,' and said, “We have got 200,000 members and; we have got the public at large. When they understand what this'is all about, I have no doubt what; their reaction will be." The resignation row would not lead to an early General Election, he said.

Further comment, page 2