THE PRESS SATURDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1988. Consulting on health policy

Press, 8 October 1988, Page 20

THE PRESS SATURDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1988. Consulting on health policy

The new accord between the Labour Government and the Labour Party will have its first real test on the Government’s proposals to modify the health system, and particularly on the charges made for prescriptions. The accord was a compromise thrashed out at the party’s annual conference early in September. It attempts to reconcile the intentions of the Government with the policies laid down by the party in its manifesto and in conference decisions. At times in the last four years, party and elected politicians have been far apart in their policies, especially on economic matters.

The accord does not give the party a veto over the Government’s policy. It would be wrong for the party to have such power. The Government has been elected by a very large number of New Zealanders who are not party members. It must govern, at least in theory, in the interests of all New Zealanders, including those who voted against the Government candidates. The Labour Party, at best, represents some thousands of people — a small proportion of the country as a whole. At the same time, no Government can expect to survive if it strays too far from its preelection promises, or from the stated wishes of the party members who helped to enable its election. It was a measure of the divide between the Government and its party that the Prime Minister found it necessary to establish a formal accord between the two, backed now by 10 party committees. The Government, and individual Ministers, have an obligation to consult those committees when the Government’s intentions appear to be at odds with party policy. If no agreement is reached, the matter must be taken to a higher committee made up of the Prime Minister and his deputy, plus the party’s president, its secretary, and two members of its policy

council. In the last resort, the politicians could be outvoted, although the party officials would not necessarily present a united front. Even if they did so, the Government could still proceed without approval from the party, but at the risk of an unfavourable reaction from the party machine, conference delegates and general membership.

Others in the community are unable to give their opinions until the proposals are made known. The process of referring plans to the party, if kept as open as it should be, may be a way of testing wider opinion before the Government makes decisions. In the end, of course, a Government has to govern and it cannot take endless soundings of opinion or act only when it finds that its plans are popular. Policies have to fit in with each other; a popular step in one direction may lead to unpopular consequences in another direction. Piecemeal assessments of policy by special-interest groups, inside or outside a party machine, might end in an incoherent package of policies. This consultation process under the accord needs care.

Nevertheless, abiding by the accord will slow the Government in its rush towards some of its more contentious legislation. The delay could provide more time for reflection and debate, not just within the party, but in the wider community. For many New Zealanders, the rate of change in the last four years has been as bewildering as many of the changes themselves. Even when there has been consultation, it has often seemed a perfunctory exercise by a Government which has already made up its mind and will not be diverted. Discussing intentions with Labour Party committees will give everyone a little more time, provided that the Government’s plans are made public first. On most matters this openness is possible and desirable and is certainly in line with what the Government, in 1984, promised it would do.