First big clash in House to Labour

Press, 2 June 1984, Page 2

First big clash in House to Labour

By

MICHAEL HANNAH

in Wellington The first big clash of the parties in Parliament belonged to Labour yesterday through a gimmick, a surprise attack, and a measure of luck. A lack of positive policy from Labour also gave the Government little to attack, leaving it in a position of having to defend its own policies rather than belittle the Opposition’s. Labour’s spokesman on finance, Mr R. 0. Douglas, was responsible for the gimmick, when he opened the Opposition’s case against an Imprest Supply Bill, which voted $5330 million as a first instalment towards Government spending in the 1984-85 fiscal year. Mr Douglas announced that his Manurewa electorate committee was running a “Game for the Thinking Voter.” Called “National Folly,” the game offered a prize of $3OOO to the winner, while collecting $1 for the Labour Party’s funds from each contestant. Contestants are required to list in order of the most disastrous effect on New Zealanders 10 National Party policies in the last nine years. Mr Douglas’s announcement bemused Government members and initially left the impression that Labour had perhaps misjudged and failed to take seriously an important economic debate. But the details of the game showed that it was genuine — the party has a licence to run it — and that its closing date is timed to coincide

with the Labour Party’s release of economic policy in September, ensuring the party continuing publicity for its arguments against Government policies, until it publicises its own alternatives. The gimmick also gave Mr Douglas a debating point, more than compensating for the weak delivery from which his speeches tend to suffer. It also caught the Government benches unawares. Mr Douglas used the game to score a point against divisions in the National Party over economic philosophy by challenging the Minister of Finance, Sir Robert Muldoon, and the member for Rangiora, Mr Derek Quigley, to enter the contest. He was prepared to finance their entries, he said, if they felt they could not give $1 to the Labour Party’s funds. Sir Robert screwed up his copy of the game. Mr Quigley’s landed on his conspicuously empty bench. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lange, made a surprise attack on the Government’s attitude to law and order, using the violence at the Marsden Point refinery to illustrate the “responsible” attitude of union delegates on the site. His attack emerged like an unexpected suit in a game of cards in what was supposed to be a debate on the economy. It appeared to take Government members by surprise, though the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr McLay, proved equally skilful in using the same indus-

trial dispute to belabour the Opposition. Mr McLay defended the right of the eight scaffolders at the refinery expansion site to work, and challenged Labour to say whether its Bill of Rights would contain the right to join unions voluntarily. A measure of luck went Labour’s way during speeches by Sir Robert Muldoon and Mr McLay. Both lost their voices, Mr McLay more seriously. Their cracked deliveries distracted from the substance of their arguments. Both Sir Robert and Mr McLay made boisterous attacks on the Labour Opposition — Social Credit did not figure in the debate until its leader, Mr Beetham, took the call to speak — and they vigorously defended the Government’s performance in reducing inflation, interest rates, unemployment, and increasing economic growth. Throughout the rest of the debate, issues which had arisen over the last five months since Parliament rose were well covered. Labour’s attack, however, centred much on the performance of the economy, the style of government, and on the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr McLay, who came in for specific attacks over law and order particularly. Mr McLay rose to the occasion, though his voice let him down. Rather like the cricket batsman who has had to retire hurt, Mr McLay’s full response will have to wait until later in the innings, or in this case, the Parliamentary session.