THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1988. The ball in the P.M.’s court

Press, 23 November 1988, Page 20

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1988. The ball in the P.M.’s court

Although Mr Lange had. been criticised before, talk of upsetting or undermining his Prime Ministership has increased dramatically since the dismissal of Mr Prebble, first as Minister of State-Owned Enterprises and then from the Cabinet. The talk along these lines has become everyday discussion; it is not confined to newspaper columns and broadcast programmes and interviews. The stability of the Prime Ministership and the Government as a whole is being questioned; the direction that policy will take has become uncertain. Yet it is still not completely clear whether something which may be described as a concerted campaign has been mounted or whether a number of comments, notably from Mr Prebble, are the unsettling factor. Mr Prebble may have demolished his own political career for the foreseeable future. It is reasonably certain that had he not indulged in his extraordinary allegations about the state of mind of the Prime Minister, Mr Lange would have faced some difficult questions within the Cabinet about ■ his treatment of Mr Prebble as Minister of State-Owned Enterprises. Instead, Mr Prebble gave the Prime Minister no option but to remove him from the Cabinet. Mr Prebble may yet prove to be more dangerous to the Government outside the Cabinet than he was in it. In spite of his asserted allegiance to the Labour Party and his dedication to its prospering, Mr Prebble does not seem to have withdrawn at all from his position in respect of Mr Lange. If there is a destabilisation campaign it seems an odd affair and almost certainly bound to fail. Challenges to a political leader are often made at the end of a Parliamentary session, so it may be said that the timing is right. But little else is. It needs to be observed at the outset that this is a peculiar way to go about removing a leader. It has to be seen rather as an unsettling campaign, not as a leadership challenge. No other member of the Cabinet is openly bidding for Mr Lange’s job and there is no clear consensus about who should succeed him even if there were an open desire to replace him. It may reasonably be observed of the present Government that it has taken many steps without sufficient regard to the consequences; but getting rid of a leader without having any idea of who would replace him would push the party to new heights of rashness, even for a rash Government.

A further difficulty about intrigues to alter policy or to deflect the Prime Minister, or unseat him, is that such intrigues are best carried on away from the gaze of the public; otherwise, the public is likely to begin to show sympathy for the victim. Thrusts at Mr Lange’s position have been made in a very public way, though sometimes with great delicacy; and this opens the risk of misinterpreting their force and intent. Whether the efforts are isolated or concerted, by themselves their chances of success in removing Mr Lange seem slight. However, if Mr Lange were prepared to reinforce them by making a political gaffe or two, their chances would be greatly improved. Subtle as some of the signs of antagonism may be, to the point of being doubtful signs, the general mood that has been created leads to the conclusion again and again that a thrust or feint was deliberate.

The effects on the country of the whole affair are greatly to be deplored. Business and individual confidence need boosting. New Zealand is in the unenviable position — an almost unique position for an Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development country — of being in a severe recession while the rest of the world is enjoying an economic boom. New Zealand has to recover from its economic recession in time to catch the wave. Both businesses and individuals have to have a clear sense of direction to make decisions about investments and careers; these decisions cannot be made while there is confusion.

The confusion does not all come from the Government. Too often the conflict in the Government — and about this there is no

doubt — is presented as a continuation of the economic programme graced with the name Rogernomics or its abandonment. Such a presentation is inadequate. The Government clearly has no intention of abandoning its economic changes. Mr Lange is not the leader of the anti-Rogernomics group. That position is taken by Mr Anderton. Mr Lange has repeatedly affirmed that the sale of State assets will be continued. Mr Anderton wants to roll back Rogernomics; Mr Lange would be one of its staunchest defenders, not perhaps in all detail, but in general. The nature of the conflict is about social welfare spending and the use to which money saved from State asset sales, or saved through greater efficiency, is going to be put. Mr Douglas has been saying loudly and clearly that he thinks social welfare spending needs to be targeted better. This would entail a far greater reliance on means testing. Many social welfare benefits are already means tested; but Mr Douglas clearly has some extension of this principle in mind. He also seems to want to put social welfare money in the hands of the consumers, not the providers of social welfare. He believes that in this way these consumers would have a better choice and that more satisfaction or value for money would be attained.

For a long time, Mr Lange seemed content to accept that the free-market policies espoused by the Rogernomics group in Cabinet and in the caucus would produce an economic climate in which all New Zealanders could flourish. Certainly the policies followed in New Zealand have brought about a much lower inflation rate and produced some signs that other economic indicators are looking better. But there is no indication that unemployment will fall. The whole country had to suspend belief to see what' would be the result of the Rogernomics experiment. Mr Lange has not become an unbeliever, but rather a questioner. The unemployment figures are being driven by Government restructuring and Mr Lange, having come to realise that, is older, sadder, and wiser. Within the Cabinet he has often not been able to get his own way and is impatient of that situation. He has the glory without the power.

There is an ideological rift within the Labour Party, but that rift is not between Mr Douglas and Mr Lange. Theirs is more a difference over management. The Anderton group carries the standard for the forces opposed to the Lange-Douglas Government. It is an interesting phenomenon that ideological rifts now seem to split parties and are less the dividing mark between them. In New Zealand, the ideological split is as evident within the National Party as it is in Labour. It is not clear which faction would dominate within the National Party, while it is very clear within the Labour Party that one form or another of Rogernomics will persist. The party’s problem remains the lack of an agreed, fully considered policy before it took office in 1984. All it really had was a general agreement on change to undo the Muldoon policies and, in the background, Mr Douglas’s ideas on how to do this.

The Labour Government would find it difficult to do without either Mr Lange or Mr Douglas. Perhaps, now that Mr Palmer is back, some way will be found through the mess. The rule that requires a leadership vote in the first meeting of the caucus in February may help resolve the matter; but the Government — and the country — cannot afford to allow matters to drift until then. If those opposing Mr Lange have the numbers to topple him, they should make their decision about whether they should do so and act quickly. If they have neither desire nor strength to do this, they should accept the national need to at least present a united front. The effects of failing to do this will be domestically and internationally bad. Mr Lange wants and needs to be seen as a leader. One way of asserting that leadership would be to use his great powers of persuasion to make his colleagues see that and end this debilitating uncertainty.