Division within National

Press, 30 March 1989, Page 12

Division within National

Mr Caygill’s economic statement was designed to engender confidence in the economy, to encourage investment. But the most immediate and spectacular result of last week’s statement is compounding of economic confusion in the Opposition. Miss Richardson in effect supported the Government on one of its restraints on spending while Mr Peters called for greater spending. Miss Richardson and Mr Peters once more are conducting a feud in public and Mr Bolger is rebuking them; Mr Bolger has criticised the views of Mr Peters.

Miss Richardson justified her action on spending on social welfare by arguing that National has not sorted out its thinking on the issue. She was thus, in her view, not departing from an agreed policy of the party. If one of National’s senior Parliamentarians declares the party’s policy on this important point non-existent, and when similar vacuums are evident in other policy areas, then the party’s claim to be able to form an effective Government appears weak. If correct behaviour is the criterion, Miss Richardson was right in being irritated by Mr Peters straying into her allotted responsibility for finance. However, Mr Peters, who is testing his powers as a populist leader, is showing signs of establishing priorities that do not include abiding by correct behaviour if this conflicts with his own agenda. Had Mr Bolger been less riled by Ms Richardson he might have backed her and rebuked Mr Peters. Mr Bolger has since tried to make clear that if the National Party comes to power in 1990 it will be the views of Miss Richardson which will guide National Party economic thinking.

The conflict has a host of implications. One concerns the relative positions of Messrs Bolger and Peters. Mr Bolger seems to have the support of most of the Parliamentary wing of the party. Mr Peters has not openly spoken of making a bid for the leadership but his behaviour suggests that this is what he is positioning himself for. Although his support within the National caucus is small, it is in the nature of a populist politician that he or she does not require the same support from colleagues as other political leaders do. He may be relying on a growth in public support, which, in time, his colleagues would be unable to ignore. A constant rise in his

popularity, measured by public opinion polls, would in time help his colleagues accept the notion of a party led by Mr Peters. Mr Bolger will need to be on his guard against that possibility. Much more open criticism of Mr Peters may thus be expected from Mr Bolger. The higher profile given to economics over the last few years has focused attention on the economic policies advanced by the political parties. The National Party has traditionally been the party of ad hoc measures and as it has usually been the Government it has not needed to justify its policies. Usually when National was the Government it had good reason for not justifying its policies because its rhetoric, outlook and general philosophy was opposed to many of the actions it took. However, politicians are now expected to be articulate about economic policies. Miss Richardson has developed that capacity, although her failing is that she often seems to prefer a slogan to a reasoned statement. But she is one of the few in the Parliamentary National Party with a willingness to grapple with ideas and think in detail. This is what is needed today. The time has gone in New Zealand politics when a party could rest on traditional allegiances and muddle along, relying for support on a predictable abhorrence of the prospect of the other lot getting into power. A detailed and articulate presentation of policies is needed in office and in opposition. One of the problems of articulating an economic policy is that it gives people, within the party and without, a chance to criticise in detail. This suggests that internal vigorous debate, conducted in public, will become a common part of the life of political parties.

Last week’s events have not clarified the issues for next year’s election. Mr Bolger is deplorably vague about all policies, particularly financial policies. But it seems he is prepared to give Miss Richardson the finance portfolio should National win. That raises the curious dilemma of what National would do that Labour has not already done. Perhaps National would be more extreme on social policy, for instance. Does this mean that if the voter wants to preserve what will remain of the social welfare system then Labour should be the choice? That is a fine situation for the reforming Labour Government to find itself in.