Bradford quits in party feud

Press, 23 February 1989, Page 1

Bradford quits in party feud

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

Bitter feuding in the National Party broke out into the open yesterday with the forced resignation of the party’s secretarygeneral, Mr Max Bradford. His departure marks the latest stage of the bickering at the highest levels of the party over leadership and policy direction.

The cause of Mr Bradford’s downfall is the software in the centralised computer system the National Party has introduced. This was the system the Republican Party used in the United States and obtained from Singapore, as part of the drive to modernise National’s administration and fund-raising. Both Mr Bradford and the party president,, Mr Neville Young, have been forceful advocates of modernisation and centralisation. They have cited Labour’s success in the 1984 and 1987 elections and the need for National to match Labour. But modernisation and centralisation cut across National’s two traditional strengths. National has always relied on a cadre of unpaid volunteer enthusiasts and rewarded them by giving substantial measures of autonomy to its electorate-level organisation. The anger of the party traditionalists with Mr Young and Mr Bradford was given new impetus when delegates to last year’s National Party conference in Rotorua first learned of problems with the computer system being used.

“Operational Hannibal,” as the centralised direct-access computer program was known, became known as “Operational White Elephant.” It cost a great deal of money — estimates ranged as high as $250,000 — but $lOO,OOO was nearer the mark. It also had the occasional glitch, such as when it doubled-billed party members.

But the main cloud over it was an allegation of “software piracy” by some party members. Instead of dealing with this allegation promptly, for various reasons National’s ruling executive committee allowed the matter to drag on for about six months.

Mr Bradford was blamed by two factions in the party, both Auckland-dominated, who otherwise have little in common with each other.

There was a group associated with the chairman of the party’s Auckland division, Dr Ross Armstrong, unhappy with the leadership Mr Young and Mr Bradford were providing. Last evening Mr Bradford was threatening legal action against Dr Armstrong for remarks attributed to him in an Auckland newspaper yesterday. The other group is associated with the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon, who considered Mr Young and Mr Bradford were breaking up the traditional National Party volunteer base and exerting too much central control over electorate autonomy. Late last year the National caucus in Parliament supported Mr Bradford as he came under increasing attack from within the party. But at the three-day National caucus meeting in Auckland last week an attack led by Sir Robert saw less support for Mr Bradford. By last week-end Mr Young’s support for Mr Bradford had weakened to the point that Mr Bradford was exposed unprotected to his critics.

It was also becoming difficult for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bolger, to protect Mr Bradford, with whom he had worked closely and profitablv.

Young, page 6