Mr Douglas refutes ‘myth’

Press, 27 June 1987, Page 8

Mr Douglas refutes ‘myth’

PA Wellington

The Minister of Finance, Mr Douglas, says his economic strategy was accepted by Labour Party policymakers in late 1983, not decided on only after they won power. A book by Mr Douglas released yesterday would dispel the "myth” that Labour had no set policy at the time of the 1984 General Election and the “conspiracy theories” that the economic strategy was only' the doing of Treasury officials or just the three Finance Ministers, Mr Douglas told the Society of Accountants. He began crystallising ideas on economic policy from April, 1983, when given the Opposition spokesman’s role in that area and consulted a "think tank” of business people and several academics, Mr Douglas said. Then, in late 1983, a 51-

page document on the new policy went to the Labour Party’s Policy Council where the majority had accepted “the broad direction of the strategy.” “Everyone who looked at that policy document knew exactly what we wanted to do,” Mr Douglas said.

In his address, which was devoted to promoting the book, Mr Douglas said one chapter on the formulation of the economic policy would “set the record straight” and show there was no “secret agenda known only to the Treasury.” The Minister ’ chided journalists for perpetuating a view that the policy was not formed .and supported by the party generally. An article in the latest edition, of the “Listener” was the;latest ;ex-, ample of a “pet theory”

not supported by facts.

Asked the book’s price, Mr Douglas said at $39.95 it was an example of “reader pays.” In the book, “Toward Prosperity,” Mr Douglas said that departments unhappy with creation of State-owned enterprises on commercial lines had waged “classic bureaucratic guerrilla warfare” for six months.

1 Intentionally or unintentionally, bureaucrats used every strategy in the book to delay, prevaricate and so avoid confronting the possibility of change, he said.

He said that in May, 1985, he tried to get agreement on a compre-

hensive approach to all S.O.E.S to reorganise them on a commercial basis. The State Services Commission thought it far too radical while the Audit Office took umbrage because it considered the proposal cut across its patch and it wanted more, input. “The departments directly affected felt threatened and reported defensively,” he said. The Cabinet’s policy committee, sent officials away to compile a concise summary within three weeks. However, that report was never received and it was not until, six months later the committee was able to pick it up.