Few of Sir Robert’s views included in party report

Press, 2 April 1985, Page 32

Few of Sir Robert’s views included in party report

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington A report to be considered by the Dominion council of the National Party on April' 9-10 bears little resemblance to the recommendations to the review committee from National’s former Leader and Prime Minister,; Sir Robert Muldoon. . He wrote a report that sheeted responsibility for the 1984 General Election loss on to the party organisation. > So damning was Sir Robert’s analysis of the party organisation that "he provoked a reaction from a member of National’s Dominion council, Mr J. W. Schnellenberg. “There seems little doubt that the standard or organisation of meetings had next to nothing to do with the outcome,” Mr Schnellenberg said. “The public mood, as reported by canvassers in every electorate with whom I had contact, was quite simply, ‘when Muldoon goes, you get our vote back.’ “This was dominant over

several months and I believe that if the leader had undertaken to remove his clothes slowly to the music of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, the toilrnouts would not have been any larger,” he said. Sir Robert, however, was unrepentant. He said he had no option but to call an early election because of the disloyalty of some National members of Parliament. “In retrospect, I believe we had no other option although it is likely we would have lost fewer seats had we gone through to November,” he said. “I cannot believe we would have won in November.” The public reaction to the calling of the election had been one of shock, probably incredulous shock. “I failed to convince the public that we had a real problem with our two recalcitrant members (Ms Marilyn Waring and Mr Michael Minogue),” Sir Robert said. “I had not appreciated the scepticism with which the (election) announcement

was received. “Ms Waring received a good deal of public sj’mpathy as it was felt she was being blamed for something which was really a clever political ploy by the Prime Minister who knew that he would lose in November and was trying to take advantage of the Marsden Point situation in order to get a snap election victory. Mr Minogue barely figured in these considerations.” In his criticism of the campaign, Sir Robert said National had played into Labour’s hands, to some extent, by having an early election. That had provided a close parallel with the earlier Australian situation, where Labour had won. "After nearly nine years of recession, in which the principal achievement of the Government was to maintain living standards while building in the broader-based economy for future progress, it is understandable that our slogan, ‘We’re Winning,’ did not produce a universally favourable response,” Sir Robert

saiu. He then mounted an attack on how the party organisation ’ at Dominion level ran the campaign. The ticketing system for his meetings, and the general organisaton, had been “adrift.” Advertising had also been a mess, and again the responsibility had lain with Dominion headquarters. Sir Robert spent six pages of his 15-page report giving details of what had gone wrong, and in apportioning the blame for it. “The news media were uniformly hostile,” he said. “Journalists today are trade unionists first and professionals second, with very few exeptions.” Even without the New Zealand Party, National would have lost comfortably, although by a smaller margin of seats. The New Zealand Party had not cost National the election. “It follows,” Sir Robert said, “that we cannot win simply by getting Jones Party voters back. We must take votes from Labour.” Sir Robert’s report contains some tactical advice on how National should act so as to win in 1987. Central to this would be overhauling the party organistion. “We have to accept the fact that over much of the country our party organisation is nowhere near as strong as it used to be,” he said. “Organisation should start from the top, and by that I mean Dominion headquarters. “I regret to say, and this view is widely shared in the caucus, that the general director (Mr Barrie Leay) has not been strong on orgnaisation,” Sir Robert said. “It is hard to see how a general director with wide personal business interests and a deep interest in day-to-day Government policy,

can give the attention either to administration or to the organisational structure of the party which it deservs. “I am told that the finances of the party are not in good shape,” he said. “I am told that at the time of the election the party’s accounts for the year ending December, 1983, had not yet been audited, although there was no rason to believe that anything was amiss. “For an organisation that handles large sums of donated money that is not good enough.” But his strictures about the party organisation in general, and Mr Leay in particular, have been largely ignored in the organisation review report to be considered by National’s Dominion Council on April 9-10. Mr Leay survives unscathed and uncriticised in the report, that as a matter of policy chose not to seek scapegoats but which looks at the future. However, the rise of the Sunday Club and the nature of its criticisms of the party organisation show that Sir Robert is not alone in his opinion.