Leader and consensus specialist

Press, 9 December 1983, Page 19

Leader and consensus specialist

By Professor KEITH JACKSON, of the political science department of the University of Can.'erbury.

The reputedly great Prime Ministers of New Zealand tend to be figures who either dominated or were loved — men such as Seddon or Savage. Sir Keith Holyoake’s distinction lies in neither of, these characteristics as in many ways he was a Clement Attlee type-figure, an ordinary man of unusual talents.

Essentially he was a man who could wield great influence quietly and effectively without flamboyance. Yet his record by any standards is remarkable — second

only to Seddon in the length of time served as Prime Minister — and the only Prime Minister this century to win four successive elections and the first Prime Minister to serve as Gover-nor-General.

Keith Holyoake was first and foremost a dedicated working politician with rather limited horizons and a great sense of the importance of Parliament — a “nuts and bolts” man. He will not be remembered as a visionary or Statesman but as a leader. He had one of the keenest political senses that Parliament has known, an outstanding, astute parliamentary tactician above all else. Without the dubious benefit of opinion polls he could judge the opinions of the

public and his colleagues to a nicety. As such he will be remembered as. the high priest of consensus. Holyoake epitomised the .team man.

He once said in an interview with Austin Mitchell: “I have never believed that a one-man government is an effective government, and in any case a one-man government is too easy to shoot down ... If they (his colleagues) have a problem they just buzz me and come and have a chat about it. This I find is helpful. It creates the team spirit, which I think is essential in all activity ... I believe in team work, I think it is essential in any sphere of life ... government by consent whether it is in the

Cabinet, the caucus or in Parliament ...” At the same time, however, he ensured that he ran a well-drilled team even from time to time employing in Cabinet his “little gimmick” of suddenly asking Minister A to explain Minister B’s paper just to ensure that all his Ministers had done their homework properly.

Although capable of leading from the front, he would often keep his colleagues guessing about his own stance until full discussion had taken place. He was a man with a reputation for keeping his word and respecting decisions which went against him. Typically he could turn public differences of opinion amongst

his colleagues into a political asset when he declared that he enjoyed having “redblooded” men around him. Simultaneously, to be able to command the respect and affection of such diverse talents as Tom Shand, Rob Muldoon or Ralph Hanan, indicates a leader of no ordinary calibre.

In the field of foreign affairs he presided over the particularly difficult years of the Vietnam involvement and the negotiations for Britain’s entry into the European Community. Over Vietnam he publicly adopted a strongly proAmerican stance although there was some evidence that he was never enthusiastic about New Zealand’s participation. In the E.E.C.

negotiations he has probably received less than due credit. When the pressure was on Marshall at Brussels it was Holyoake on the phone from Wellington, surrounded by his advisers, who played an important role in orchestrating the campaign and providing the stiffening and back-up so essential to the final outcome.

The major criticisms of the Holyoake years could be that New Zealand did not do sufficient in the 1960 s to prepare for the projected economic upheavals in the 19705. Deeply suspicious of planning, Holyoake was in the mould of New Zealand’s short-term politicians who seek to give people what they want and in that he proved outstandingly successful. Of his absolute dedication to the needs of New Zealand as he saw them, however, there can be no question.

As a man, Keith Holyoake was in many ways an enigma. He combined, for example, that rather pompous enunciation with an impish sense of humour. He was vain, yet he appeared to genuinely dislike the official trappings of office; he was difficult to know but readily accessible.

My favourite personal recollection is after a fierce difference of opinion when he attempted to censor the recording of an interview with him. He walked up before the start of the day’s proceedings at a National Party conference, snapped to attention, saluted smartly and said, “Reporting for duty, Sir.” Taken aback, I returned the salute and mumbled, “Carry on, Prime Minister.” He performed a smart about-turn and marched off chuckling goodhumouredly. No grudge, no spite, no vindictiveness.

Keith Holyoake was a great politician, the last of the old-style leaders, men with limited formal education but great acuity, the difference is that he survived into a different age.