Sir Robert’s comments anger Mr McLay

Press, 24 July 1985, Page 1

Sir Robert’s comments anger Mr McLay

Staff reporters The Leader of the Opposition, Mr McLay, was goaded yesterday into publicly responding to comments made against him by Sir Robert Muldoon. Asked if he would take disciplinary action, however, Mr McLay said, “We don’t discipline members of our caucus.” He said he had no more powers over Sir Robert than Sir Robert had had over Mike Minogue and Marilyn Waring — rebels in the last National Government. But the normally restrained Mr McLay owned in Wellington last night to being “very angry.” Sir Robert, launching his latest book in Dunedin, told a reporter that when Mr McLay had become his deputy he had thought he would be ready to take the reins after something like three years. “During last year I watched him very closely,” Sir Robert said. “I didn’t ever get to the stage where I was completely confident and I still haven’t got to that point. “Quite apart from any personal qualities he may or may not have, I think he is making a mistake in trying to sell to the public the idea that the National Party under his leadership will be different.” Mr McLay said that of course his approach was different and that it was nonsense for Sir Robert to suggest it should be the same as his had been. “I am certainly not going to copy him. The reason that I am leader of the National Party is that the caucus, the party organisa-

tion, and the public said they wanted a change from his style of leadership,” Mr McLay said. Sir Robert’s comments of yesterday are the latest in a series he has made on Mr McLay’s performance as his successor but he seems to be stepping up the pace into what now looks like a deliberate campaign. This week’s issue of the newspaper, “Truth,” has Sir Robert coming out for Mr McLay’s former press secretary, Mrs Wendy Mehaney, and against Mr McLay in the row over telephone calls made to Australia to check on the Prime Minister’s health when Mr Lange was on holiday in Brisbane. Mr McLay said last evening that he accepted full responsibility for anything that happened in his office and that he was not prepared to discuss publicly any matter relating to a member of his staff. He preferred to address himself to what Sir Robert had said in Dunedin. He indicated that he would have words with Sir Robert and said a number of his colleagues had expressed concern about the remarks that had been made. But he made it clear that there would be no public showdown. “I have for six months ignored Sir Robert’s comments about me and I have done so because I believed that to be in the interests of the National Party and I have been criticised by some for not retaliating,” he said. “But I am not interested in fighting some rearguard action against a past leader.” His target was the Labour

Government, Mr McLay said. It was put to him that if Sir Robert was to continue in the same vein the effect could be damaging to his credibility. “Oh look, that is only if Sir Robert is still relevant,” he said, and asked why the news media gave him so much play. The former leader of the Australian Liberal Party, Mr Malcolm Fraser, was implicitly critical of Sir Robert when in New Zealand last week, suggesting that the fair thing would have been for him to retire from politics when he was ousted from the leadership so that Mr McLay could get on with it. Asked to respond last evening, Mr McLay said, “Malcolm Fraser has got a lot of wisdom.” Sir Robert, in Ashburton yesterday, said in defence of his former information officer, Mrs Wendy Mehaney, that a loyal employee was getting blamed for doing something she was entitled to do. Mrs Mehaney resigned two weeks ago as information officer to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr McLay. Mr McLay has remained silent about her resignation. “What Mr McLay does is his own business,” Sir Robert said in Ashburton yesterday, of Mr McLay’s silence. “That is his choice. I was never a leader who said ‘No comment’,” said Sir Robert, who was visiting Ashburton to promote his new book and later to attend a charity function for crippled children. Sir Robert later said his motive in speaking publicly

about the affair was to defend a “loyal employee and a capable journalist” who had only been doing her job. Sir Robert said his remarks on the subject had been solicited. A reporter of “Truth” that Mrs Mehaney and so he had spoken out. Sir Robert had told “Truth” that Mrs Mehany had made the calls with the knowledge and approval of Mr McLay. She had merely been doing her job and there was no question of her making the inquiries on her own •initiative. When there was a suggestion of ill-health from any news source, any alert Opposition followed it up. Sir Robert said that Mrs Mehaney had come to him later in a “very distressed” state after the subsequent publicity and lack of comment by Mr McLay. Sir Robert said that after speaking to “Truth,” he had told Mr McLay to speak out also but as far as he knew Mr McLay had not. Mrs Mehaney finished working for Mr McLay’s office on July 12 after being due to leave in mid-August. She has also declined to comment publicly on the issue, saying she is still a public servant. In May she was given three months notice that her contract with the Leader of the Opposition’s office would not be renewed. Being a public servant she was not closely identified with the National Party and Mr McLay has subsequently opted for a public relations consultant, Ms Michelle Boag, as her successor. Ms Boag has been promotions officer for the Wellington division of the National Party.