A lesson from history for a doubting Minister

Press, 2 April 1988, Page 20

A lesson from history for a doubting Minister

Brendon Burns, of our political staff, analyses differences among Cabinet Ministers

NIGH on a hundred years ago, the member ■ of { Parliament for Wanganui was Premier John Ballance. One of his proudest achievements in his short term as the nation’s leader was to establish a Labour Department, i charged with improving the conditions of workers.

Nearly ap century later, Mr Russell Marshall learnt that the Department j of Labour .office in Wanganui, only a stone’s throw from Ballance’s grave, was to lose half its staff, i Mr Marshall, M.P. for Wanganui since 1972,: last week vented his frustrations at the heavy toll ibf Government restructuring on his provincial city seat. The 'l9 jobs! lost at the Wanganui : Labour ; Department office comes at a time when the region has 3000 unemployed. Rogemorriics has i never rested easy with Mr Marshall, a former Methodist minister, i not afraid of wearing his genuine care for people on his sleeve. Sir Robert Muldoon once dubbed him “the Red Reverend.” | i He has come up against the cutting edge of Rogernomics before. In 1986 he considered resigning when the East Town railway workshops in his e ectorate were closed. He stayed on, urged to do so ! by his colleagues, but came within a whisker of losing his seat last August to a Democrat challenger. The frustration of endorsing policies of - State restructuring boiled over when he visited his depleted Labour Department regional office. Provincial areas were being hit ,100 hard and unfairly by the cumulative effect policies, he said. “The Government has to stop arid catch its breath.”

About the same] time, the Minister for State-Qwned Enterprises, Mr Prebble, was telling ah Auckland audibnce that if the benefits of refoijm were to be reaped "we must maintain its momentum.” There jean be no clearer indication of a Cabinet which has lost its way. There are always fights in] the Cabinet, but when they become as apparent as the divisions within the Lange Administration, they are corrosive of voter and business confidence?

In recent weeks, Mr Prebble and Mr Douglas have been speaking up and down the country pressing their agenda to keep up the momentum of change. But their speeches are {not in the final analysis aimed at their audiences or the public; they are attempting to create a climate of opinion which will persuade Cabinet colleagues of the likes of Mr Marshall. ’ The address given to the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce this week by Mr Douglas is a case in point. He launched his first defence of the more radicail elements of the December economic package, since these were put on the backburner by Mr Lange. The Prime Minister had taken this action, stating the flat tax rate and. Guaranteed Minimum Family Income could leave some people worse off, and this was not acceptable.

Mr Douglas told Canterbury business leaders that his G.M.F.I. scheme had been much maligned and they wouldn’t have objected to a 23 {per cent tax rate. He emphasised that his reforms were aimed at making everyone better off, and noted that the December; 17 statement had been given Cabinet endorsement. Much of the {reason for the subsequent retraction from the economic package was that i! it contained social policy measures. • Mr Lange and his deputy, Mr Geoffrey Palmer, said the Royal Commission on Social Policy’s findings should be {awaited. The commission has now presented working papers on' income maintenance and taxation, with a further nine reports to come.

But in his Canterbury speech Mr Douglas seems to have indicated a concern at' the direction of the Royal Commission, which essentially seems; to favour extending the Welfare State. [He said the present system of social welfare took away incentives for self-improvement. The whole thrust of his December 17 measures were to encourage people at all levels of society to

I I I do better for themselves.

Citing figures from the package, Mr Douglas argued that lowincome earners wbujd be much better off from his flat tax/ G.M.F.I. package.' { At present, New Zealand did not have an I income-maintenance system, but Jan income-limitation system, whjch penalised people who wanted to climb out of the welfare/povjerty tjrap. { ; While stating the {Government would give priority consideration to the Royal Comihission’Si recommendations, Mr {Douglas {said the principles he | espoused could not be ignored ip attempting to improve social policy. Clearly, {the tatiinet is { not convinced, so the' debate is being conducted publicjy as well as on the Beehive’s tenth {floor. Perhaps one thing it can agree on is that Roger Douglas is not in the same league,’ as members of the So-called New Right, such as National’s Miss {Ruth Richarjdson. Mr Douglas said] propaganda has been spread that ne is not only in this camp, {but one of its leaders. I { Such “propaganda” came from Sir Ronald Trover] last Tuesday in saying {Mr Douglas and' Miss Richardson had business i community support {for; broadly similar policy; directiops. { Yet Sir Ronald a key adviser to Mr Prebblej oh State-owned enterprises, most {of I which the Minister seems keen to sell. Such asset sales have long been advocated by | Miss Richardson and now feature as National Party policy, even if tjhe{National Party argues against {the Government’s “fire sale” approach. | h Mr Prebble has clearly de-'l cided hei wants to I have i every " asset except . the | Reserve Bank examined fori possible sale. That . debate continues jn Cabinet, and outside as Mr Prebble’s i recent speeches} indichte. Mr Marshal, in an interview with “The Prjess” this week, said the ground ru es{ for asset .sales were still beirig drawn up. Then each asset would be considered I ! L

for sale againpt this criteria. Few, if any, members of! the Government wf re utterly i opposed to any asset sales, he said. “I think there are a number of us who are not {going! to die in a ditch about some of the asset sales at all, but there!is clearly a nervousness about flogging off the whole lot.” j Mr Marshall will {not retract his comments made about the effects of Government policies on provincial areas,! and states he has considered resignation as a Cabinet Minister because of the direction of the Government. The most obvious occasion was his I public J agonising i over whether to resign because of the closure of Wariganui’s rail workshops. But there have been other instances. “There { have' j been times in the past when it certainly has occurred {to me that I might say I can’t go along with that,” he said.j j i ; Every Minister has to ask what is his or her bottom {line, he said. “I’m not so {absolutely wedded to politics that staying; in the; job is more important' than holding on ■to the things that I want to do.” However, in spite of J public differences in! the (Cabinet, such as he and MrjPrebtile reveal,* Mr Marshall said he is now more confident than ever that ; the Government will j bring about what he wants to {see. There is now an open commitment to I ; ~ '

social-policy improvements, and' better arrangements for con-1 sultation and accountability within the Government { Yet on Friday of {last week he learnt from news reports how half the Labour Department in his electorate were to lose their jobs. ■ | If! I j Mr Marshall; like others in Cabinet, is caught { between! his personal beliefs, {as one I who might proudly {wear the badge' { “socialist”?and{ the costs of im-’ plementing a market economy which can pay I for desirable social policies. (While the debate continues within and outside the Cabinet the chances of the Government achieving! its economic; and thus social goals, are being whittled away.) h[! ; j j Perhaps Mr* Marshall might consider John Ballance’s views. At first a laissez faire supporter, he gradually drifted towards the socialist views: of the day, {introducing much welfare and reform legislation. But a biographer recorded that Ballance had no tinie just for theories.!}' { , | ' "He approached many questions as a merchant would, dealing keenly and in a business way with bankers and others who 1 had business transactions with ' the Government, and making a bargain with all the shrewdness of (a businessman.” :{ i { ' ’: ih i [.! The; description could be that of Roger Douglas. • { H i : ■ I ': r : J! ■ - I ' I'■ i! i : M