Deep rifts within National Party remain unhealed

Press, 25 October 1985, Page 1

Deep rifts within National Party remain unhealed

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

The deep rifts within the National Party remain unhealed, in spite of efforts yesterday to paper over the cracks.

No action was taken at yesterday’s National Party caucus meeting against the former leader, Sir Robert Muldoon, for his explicit criticisms and implicit disloyalty to the present leader, Mr McLay. Instead, Mr McLay was driven to throw up a smokescreen of words to explain the lack of firm action when he faced about 40 journalists at a press conference after the threehour caucus meeting. Mr McLay’s explanation could not obscure the fact that he had lacked the authority within his own caucus to impose curbs, if not an outright punishment, on Sir Robert and his closest associates. For that lack of authority he could blame the results of the “Eye Witness” Heylen public opinion poll on Wednesday evening. This had put Mr McLay’s

personal rating at 2.6 per cent, the lowest rating ever by a Leader of the Opposition, and ranking him seventh among preferred Prime Ministers. With the tide of public support flowing against him, there was nothing Mr McLay could do about Sir Robert. Instead, he came up with a formula which he said had the unanimous endorsement of those at the caucus meeting, who included Sir Robert.

“I made it clear that as leader of the National Party I required, of all caucus members that they work together under my leadership to get rid of this Labour Government,” Mr McLay said. “I also required that they carry out those commitments they had made to the National Party on being elected to represent it, to abide by the rules and constitution of the National

Party, and to be loyal to its organisation, and to its chosen leader, and to refrain from attacks on the National Party and its leader.” He said that was the stance he had adopted as leader, which had received unanimous endorsement. He declined to disclose what Sir Robert or any other member of the caucus had said. He also declined to say how “unanimous endorsement” had been given or could be presumed. There had been no dissenting voice and all members of the caucus had committed themselves to his formula. There had been no abstentions. It had been his intention to have an amicable resolution of disputes among caucus members, and so achieve unity. “There was no question

raised of disciplining any member of the caucus,” Mr

McLay said. “No one person was on notice in the caucus; the whole of the caucus was on notice.” If any member of the caucus broke the unanimous, endorsement of his formula, the caucus would address that problem as it arose. He declined to speculate what might happen in such circumstances. “My leadership is stronger than ever after today’s meeting,” he said, “and I see no point in speculating what I might have done had I not got what I wanted.” He did not see the formula as “muzzling” members, but insisted that the formula marked a commitment towards unity. “If my formula is flouted then I won’t resign — as leader I will require the caucus to exercise its powers,” Mr Mclay said.

He said there was “nothing bizarre” in the suspension of two National Party officials by the party’s executive while the caucus had done nothing to caucus critics.

A former Cabinet Minister, Dr lan Shearer, who is chairman of Sir Robert Muldoon’s Tamaki electorate, and Mrs Margaret Quin, a long-time friend of Sir Robert and deputy chairman of National’s Methven branch, were both suspended from party office and membership by the executive on Wednesday. They were suspended under rule 23 of the National Party constitution: that disciplinary action may be taken against any member of the National Party acting in a manner prejudicial to the party.

Mr McLay said the party organisation and party caucus ran under different sets of rules.

It was not appropriate to say that actions under one set of rules were “unfair” compared with actions under another set of rules.

That was why it was “not bizarre or unfair” for a farmer’s wife in Methven to be suspended for “acting in a manner prejudicial to the party,” while Sir Robert was not reprimanded. After the caucus, Sir Robert said the effect of endorsement of Mr McLay’s formula was to return matters to where they had been last week when he and Mr McLay had been discussing his return to greater prominence within National. But this was denied by Mr McLay. He confirmed that he had made a decision that Sir Robert would not be repromoted last weekend, and that was that.