Sir Wallace confirmed Ambassador

Press, 26 September 1984, Page 1

Sir Wallace confirmed Ambassador

By PATRICIA HERBERT in Wellington The appointment of Sir Wallace Rowling as New Zealand’s next Ambassador to the United States was confirmed by the Prime Minister, Mr Lange, in the United States yesterday. 'Sir Wallace’s successor in the Tasman seat, Mr Ken Shirley, announced the confirmation in his maiden speech in Parliament last evening and extended New Zealand’s warm congratulations to both Sir Wallace and Lady Rowling. “Our very best wishes go to them in the certain knowledge that the many sensitive issues between the people of New Zealand and our friends in the United States will be represented in the best way possible,” he said.

Both Government and Opposition members in Parliament applauded when told of the news of Sir Wallace’s appointment. Sir Wallace said last evening he would take over as Ambassador later this year confident that the two countries can: reach an amicable understanding over the nuclear ship ban issue. “The two Governments have different standpoints on the nuclear issue but have many more points of common interest,” he said.

Sir Wallace said negotiations in the immediate

future were clearly going to be “delicate” but he relished the prospect of being at “the sharp end” of those discussions.

“I feel very much part of the Government’s strong anti-nuclear stance,” he said.

He said he had put all his papers in front of the committee, and he wanted “everything to be laid on the table on this matter.”

The Public Expenditure Committee is due to meet today to hear from the Speaker, Sir Basil Arthur, as to whether the legal challenge is valid. Until a ruling is given, the sub-committee cannot meet.

Sir Robert said the subcommittee could be re-es-tablished by a vote in Parliament and given the same terms of reference, and he was sure the Government would use its majority to do so. Treasury and Reserve Bank officials were yesterday considering a response to Sir Robert’s charge, but both declined to make any public comment. ’ However, Mr Anderton criticised Sir Robert’s remarks, particularly because the proceedings of the subcommittee were covered by Parliamentary privilege and so could not be divulged before it reported back to Parliament. /.■

“This is a quasi-judicial body. I don’t believe when it is in session that it behoves any member to make any comment of its proceedings,” Mr Anderton said. “I, personally, as chairman or member of the committee, would not at any time make any comment about witnesses or other evidence before a report. is made to the House. That is my responsibility,” he said. Mr Anderton said that his role as chairman was to be impartial in giving everyone a fair hearing, and ensuring no-one was put in a position of disadvantage on a personal or organisational level when appearing before the committee.

The purpose of the committee was to clarify what could be done to avoid the kind of speculation and pressures which had built up over the election period, and “which made a devaluation decision much more difficult to avoid than it would otherwise have been,” he said.

Mr Anderton conceded that pre-election speculation pressure had made a devaluation difficult to avoid. He confirmed that he had opposed the inclusion of devaluation as part of Labour’s policy package last year. His stance had been supported by the party’s Policy Council and acknowledged in public by the Prime Minister, Mr Lange, and the Minister of Finance, Mr Douglas. His opposition to devaluation was referred to yesterday by Sir Robert, who asserted that Mr Lange was giving policies on nuclear warship visits and on voluntary unionism as “hostages” to the Left wing of the party to “save his hide” on economic policies which

“Mr Anderton and his friends” had opposed. Sir Robert referred specifically to Mr Anderton’s objection to devaluation. Yet Mr Anderton yesterday indicated he accepted that circumstances during the election campaign had made a devaluation hard to avoid.

Talking of the work of his sub-committee, which is investigating circumstances which led up to the devaluation, Mr Anderton told “The Press” it was setting out to clarify what could be done to avoid “the kind of speculation and pressure, which clearly built up over the election period, and which made a devaluation decision much more difficult to avoid than it would otherwise have been.”

He rejected Sir Robert’s assertion that the party’s strong anti-nuclear stance and its proposal to replace the present voluntary unionism law with a form of unqualified preference were “hostages” to his opposition to economic policies implemented by the Government. He considered, however, that policies on nuclear arms and voluntary unionism were “symbolic” policies, which could be implemented while economic policies were delayed while economic problems of Sir Robert’s making were dealt with.

“Rather than the Government using them as hostage issues, the fact is that the party, both at conference and at large throughout the country, has a very real understanding of the economic problems faced by the Government, and Sir Robert Muldoon was the author of most of those problems,” he said.

“The party is prepared to give the Government a very fair chance to' achieve its objectives. But it recognises that it can be done only on a priority basis. The party is not trying, nor is any member of Parliament, to push the Government to achieve things that are not possible” Mr Anderton confirmed he had spoken on the nuclear arms policy and on voluntary unionism in party forums and in the Parliamentary caucus but he denied having “undue influence” over the Government.

“When you cannot deliver economic programmes on an economic basis immediately, you can deliver other policies which are symbolic of your position, but nevertheless real in impact,” he said.

“To say it has brought pressure would suggest I have undue influence, which I haven’t got. I have spoken on them in party forums and in caucus, but I don’t believe they would have got anywhere if the party as a whole did not accept them.” Sir Robert also described the devaluation as a bad devaluation which would not work. He considered that even setting wages at 50 per cent of indexation to inflation would not ensure the devaluation worked, because high interest rates would ensure that inflation moved back to double-digit figures.