THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1989. Government and party

Press, 15 February 1989, Page 20

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1989. Government and party

The uneasy peace forged between the Government and the Labour Party hierarchy at the party conference last September is under strain again. Even the price of that peace — an undertaking by the Government to consult the party executive more on policy matters — has become a cause of friction as the Prime Minister, Mr Lange, and the party president, Ms Ruth Dyson, offer different interpretations of what the undertaking means. The Labour Party Council has intensified efforts to make the Government’s actions conform to the party’s bidding and Ms Dyson has hinted at further change to the party’s constitution to bring this about.

The latest divisions are over the recent changes to social welfare benefits, the proposed sale of State forests, and the Government’s proposals to introduce student loans and increase charges for tertiary education. In addition, the proposal to purchase frigates as part of the Anzac defence project continues to be a bone of contention. In recent years the party has sought to bring its members of Parliament under more direct control and has succeeded in introducing constitutional changes that now entrench control of the party’s manifesto by the party conference. What now troubles the party executive is the ability of the Government to act outside the framework of the manifesto and develop policy in the Cabinet room.

This has led, among other things, to the situation in which the member of Parliament for Sydenham, Mr Jim Anderton, has come close to expulsion from the Government caucus for not complying with caucus policy decisions which Mr Anderton argues are contrary to the party’s policy. To mollify the discontented party and achieve a degree of public accord in the party ranks, Mr Lange issued a statement of intent at last September’s conference that obliges the Cabinet to consult the party’s executive if the Government’s policy is departing from policies "consistent with the manifesto of the New Zealand Labour Party.’’

Not a few numbers of the Parliamentary wing of the party are unhappy with this limitation on a Labour Government’s freedom to manoeuvre; but arguments about the need to be able to respond pragmatically to changes in the real world, and about having to govern for the benefit of the whole country, have not dissuaded a core of highlyplaced party members from their determination. In practice there always was plenty of room for disagreement about when a departure from the manifesto has occurred. Just such an instance is the disagreement

over changes to the way in which welfare benefits are calculated: Ms Dyson and the policy council are adamant that the party should have been consulted, Mr Lange is equally definite that consultation was not required because linking benefits to wages has been Labour Party policy for several years.

Publicly at least, Ms Dyson has taken a conciliatory stand on the consultation procedure and has been anxious to avoid suggestions that the party executive seeks to dictate the Government’s actions. Nonetheless, Mr Lange felt constrained to react as if that, indeed, was what had been suggested. In a pretty stiff rejoinder to Ms Dyson’s comments, Mr Lange said in four or five different ways that the party could not and would not bind the Government. Mr Lange seems to have read into Ms Dyson’s comments — or is aware from some other source — that the Government’s ability to govern as it sees fit is being challenged by elements within the Labour Party once again. The cause of these splits lies fundamentally in the fact that the Labour Party lacked 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, the ideas of the former Minister of Finance, Mr Douglas, on how to do this. Mr Douglas’s course, only vaguely discerned by most party members and even less precisely understood, proved in the end to be too strong for many of them. The dispatch of Mr Douglas to the back benches has calmed some of the more fretful party adherents, but the general thrust of Rogernomics remains central to the policies being followed by the Government. Inevitably this means that the Government — or more accurately the Cabinet — constantly courts estrangement from the party it depends on for electoral support. To reduce the risk of leading a Cabinet without a party, Mr Lange has to keep the lines of communication open; but the process of consultation will cease to have value if it is interpreted by party members as no more than a formal gesture by a Government that has already made up its mind. Ms Dyson and Mr Lange have a ticklish job to reconcile differences over policy if the Labour Party is not to be forever divided. Mr Lange has the additional task of accomplishing reconciliation without leaving an impression that the Government dances to the tune of party activists. If either task is botched, Labour’s chances of re-election next year diminish considerably.