Douglas says advice to P.M. ‘atrociously bad’

Press, 17 December 1988, Page 8

Douglas says advice to P.M. ‘atrociously bad’

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Parliament

The advice given to the Prime Minister, Mr Lange, from his own department is “often atrociously bad,” according to the former Minister of Finance, Mr Roger Douglas.

Copies of the letter he wrote to Mr Lange on December 14, which led to his sacking within minutes of being received by Mr Lange, have been released by Mr Douglas. As on previous occasions, Mr Lange has refused to discuss the details of Mr Douglas’s allegations except to deny them. "They can rain like confetti from the sky,” he said, “but my concern is with New Zealand’s future and not with retrospective self-justification." Mr Douglas’s 14-page letter to Mr Lange began: “After long and very careful consideration I have decided to tell caucus that I can no longer work as Finance Minister in a Cabinet led by you.” In it he accused Mr Lange of undermining his position as Minister of Finance by acting alone, outside the Cabinet team, and by consistently breaking the undertaking he had given. “I have put up with this for the past year and

refrained from revealing the details of those events to our colleagues, the party or public,” Mr Douglas said. “My conscience and my concern for the welfare of ordinary New Zealanders prevent me from maintaining this stance any longer.” The letter is a lengthy catalogue of complaints by Mr Douglas against Mr Lange and his management of the Government over the last year. It recounts a meeting held at 3 p.m. on August 25 in which Mr Lange told Mr Douglas he “could not cope with the tension that had developed between us.” “You said we were ‘living death to one another to 1990’ and one of us had to go,” wrote Mr Douglas. “You claimed you did not mind which of us went; the clear inference was, nonetheless, that I should be the one to step down.” He gave detailed versions of the events leading

up to and the subsquent canning of the December 17 Economic Package, and the lead-up to the 1988 Budget, including Mr Lange’s announcement of the forecast Budget deficit blow-out. In his letter Mr Douglas makes specific allegations about the role of some of Mr Lange’s staff in driving a wedge between the two men on both issues. Some of these actions he described as “woolly” and said “it had cost him mana” to keep quiet about the circumstances. Mr Douglas defended his own executives, particularly his chief press officer, Mr Bevan Burgess, and slated the actions of Mr Lange’s executives. The sacking of Mr Richard Prebble was another instance of an issue that could have been resolved without “the disruptive drama” that had been played out in public. “I still do not know why you chose to remove Richard from that (StateOwned Enterprises) portfolio, particularly in view

of the fact that since his removal no changes to the asset sales process have occurred,” Mr Douglas said. The final straw had been the manner in which overnight Mr Burgess had become the focus of news media attention when it was revealed his contract would not be renewed. "I know that neither Geoffrey Palmer nor I were responsible for that leakage to “The Press” and I can only assume that the information came from your office — I am not aware of any other possible source,” he said. (As the author of the article to which Mr Douglas refers, our reporter says the Prime Minister’s office was not the source). These are the things which have been destroying the reputation of the Government — not its policies,” Mr Douglas said. “They have gravely damaged the country’s ability to come through a very difficult adjustment with maximum gain and minimum damage or de-

lay in achieving a recovery. “The greatest present danger to the Government and the country is not our economic policy or world markets — and certainly it is not the National Party — it is this undisciplined propensity for making misjudgments which are then pursued with fanatical zeal either without seeking, or actively and publicly discarding the advice of the rest of the Cabinet, and regardless of the major economic and political consequenes,” he said. “I regret having to reveal matters which should normally be confidential between us or within the Cabinet, but your persistent breaches of trust have presented such an inaccurate view ... that I have no choice,” Mr Douglas said. The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Palmer, said of Mr Douglas’s letter that he did “not agree with his characterisation of how Cabinet has operated over the last year.”