THE PRESS FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1983. Sir Keith Holyoake

Press, 9 December 1983, Page 18

THE PRESS FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1983. Sir Keith Holyoake

In tributes to the life, work, and manner of Sir Keith Holyoake, it has been observed, or implied, that he was the last of the old-style politicians. His long record in politics makes this almost inevitably so, yet it might also be guessed that if Sir Keith had been Prime Minister in a later period, his style would have been moulded to suit the times. Much of his unquestioned strength as a political leader lay in his ability to attune himself to circumstances. It lay also in the way he so acutely perceived public opinion, and to > the talents and personalities of those working around him.

Although he had the toughness needed for political leadership, and although he could be bluff, hearty, flippant, and occasionally scathing, a very distinct streak of kindness ensured a good working relationship with his staff and colleagues, and even with his opponents in politics. His manner at times belied a genuine sense of egalitarianism. This showed through when it was appropriate, but he did not allow his ability or his readiness to get alongside people at all social levels to become a pretence, as it might easily have become. This enabled him to communicate readily with all kinds of people; it also strengthened the extraordinary loyalty that he commanded among staff and political colleagues. These qualities accounted for much of his

long success in politics; they did not explain it all. No-one who does not work hard can survive in the office of Prime Minister. Sir Keith’s hours were long; his insistence upon absorbing an immense amount of information was a challenge to all who worked with him. No Prime Minister is perfect; and his manner and his ability to slide past or around difficulties could be irritating. He was a superb poker player; if his hand was bad, or if the political situation was awkward, he knew what to do. At times, he was difficult to read; later, his mastery of the circumstance would be revealed. He seldom lost, and he could gracefully retrieve a deal that went against him. The tributes to Sir Keith are being given more than a decade after his activity on the political scene. They have the advantage of a short historical perspective. When a more distant view of his career is taken, the assessment is not likely to be very different. His place among the most outstanding of New Zealand’s political leaders is assured. Those who disagreed with his political philosophy could allow that he had a firm and safe hand in leading his team, and that he imparted a general sense that he knew what he was up to, even when he had to bluff and bluster, or crack a diverting joke. In this country it is not easy to label any politician a statesman. Sir Keith was undoubtedly a supreme political craftsman.