Less pizzazz, but more substance with Palmer

Press, 12 August 1989, Page 22

Less pizzazz, but more substance with Palmer

Brendon Burns, in Wellington, contrasts the style of the new P.M. with that of the old

ZT AM NOT David Lange,’ Mr I Palmer felt obliged to say X on Tuesday, as the Prime Minister of the last five years quit the Beehive stage. The two men had quipped about one lawyer handing on the leadership to another. But it was a storefront South Auckland barrister giving way to a former constitutional law professor. An irreverent, quick-witted, love-him-or-ha-him leader (in the afterglow of departure mostly loved), has been replaced by a Prime Minister who admits to being "somewhat austere.” This is not to say Mr Palmer does not bring strength to the job that Mr Lange lacked. For instance, his attention span can be relied on to last long enough to see an issue to its conclusion. Mr Lange often infuriated his colleagues by flicking from topic to topic, his restless mind quickly bored by detail. Mr Palmer is also a better manager than his predecessor. Already he has shown an intuitive approach to cementing good relations with his caucus, appointing popular new Cabinet Minister, Mrs King, as liaison officer to Labour M.P.s. Mr Palmer will ensure the Prime Minister’s office is run far more competently than Mr Lange ran it. While both work better with women than with men, Mr Palmer will not tolerate anything but maximum performance from any of his staff. Mr Lange limped along with advisers who at times have simply not matched the demands of the job. Mr Palmer will inherit some of the staff of the Prime Minister’s Office. But he will take his chief press secretary, Ms Karren Beanland, a former Gallery journalist for “The Press,” along with another former employee of the newspaper, Ms Cindy Baxter. Dr John Henderson, head of the Prime Minister’s Office, is no stranger to Mr Palmer. As a prefect at Nelson College, Mr Palmer is understood to have disciplined the young John Henderson with a cane. Later, the two men shared academic life together at Victoria University. But Dr Henderson’s retention is by no means certain. He is seen as bearing some responsibility for the debacle of the Anzac Day speech at Yale. Dr Henderson had briefed American ■and Australian diplomats on the speech, but they state he did not mention the prospect of Mr Lange suggesting withdrawal from A.N.Z.U.S.

Mr Palmer has a great fondness for the United States, having spent six years as a student and lecturer there. The Yale speech

was a turning point in his relationship with Mr Lange. He began to contemplate leadership, even though he still refused to lobby for it. A former Labour Party president, Ms Margaret Wilson, is suggested as a possible replacement for Dr Henderson. Such an appointment would further signal that Mr Palmer is a shrewd political tactician. He is fully conscious that Labour’s image among women voters has been seriously eroded. Women have shouldered the impact of Rogernomics — with their own labour market, such as the clothing and light manufacturing industry, hit hardest. They have also had to prop up menfolk hit by unemployment or bleak futures as farmers. A Geoffrey Palmer-Helen Clark ticket emerged in political chatter long before this week. It was not a likely combination — two austere academics — but the suggestion did not disappear. Mr Palmer had clearly looked

for a partner and saw Ms Clark as the best choice if the window of opportunity opened. It presents man/woman, North/South, and a deputy whom Mr Palmer knows he can rely on to keep the engineroom of Cabinet functioning. He presents himself as having moved from the depths of the ship to the bridge. His major difficulty in making the transition has already been identified by him as the fact that he does not have the communication skills of Mr Lange. The problem for Mr Palmer is conveying his natural self to the public. He tends to adopt his lectern as a law professor when he feels uncomfortable. This reporter once attended a party at which Mr Palmer arrived. He was clearly not feeling at ease, particularly perhaps with journalists present. So, he held court in the middle of the party, speaking in a booming voice for all to hear. A woman' friend from Nelson

approached him and engaged Mr Palmer in conversation. When he discovered she worked for the' women’s refuge in Nelson he loudly expressed surprise that his home town should need a refuge. The Nelson woman, who later claimed not to know to whom she was speaking, looked him straight in the eye and uttered a four-letter expletive at his naivity. Instantly, Mr Palmer was knocked from his lectern and became just another guest at the party, rather than an uncomfortable iceberg in its midst. Once de-lecterned he can exude warmth and humour, as journalists who have travelled overseas with him will testify. Perhaps, with the workload of deputy removed, he will grow into the Prime Ministership and relax his style. But he will have to learn not to force it, as with his first television interview as Prime Minister, on Tuesday’s “Holmes” show. Mr Palmer does not need

to flash constant goofy smiles and talk about the problem of fallen leaves he shares with his Christchurch neighbour. Mr Lange’s popularist style cannot be emulated. New Zealanders may well be ready for a more serious approach to politics, particularly from one who brings with it an image of stability and good management. Mr Palmer’s apparent ability to work with Mr Douglas, rather than be obsessed with the man as Mr Lange was, will be an asset too. All New Zealanders are heartily sick of the corrosive relationship between Mr Lange and his former Finance Minister. Mr Palmer has avoided the worst of Labour Party and union movement flack with the portfolios he has given to Mr Douglas. Among the wider public an outbreak of peace in the Government will be welcome. The other early test of his leadership is the Anzac frigate project. He appears to be in a no-win position. If he accepts a caucus vote against frigates — and abides by indications he will not try to have Cabinet over-rule it — he will have a backlash from Australia to endure. The National Party will promote the concept of New Zealand having moved into an isolationist stance, separating ourselves from the last defence ally we had in the world. This could be a chilling view for voters next election. If Mr Palmer pushes ahead with buying or leasing Australian frigates, then he risks resentment from a public and Labour Party which oppose the deal. Could it be that Mr Lange saw this looming crisis as another reason to opt out at this time? Mr Palmer could be seen to have the opportunity to capitalise on public opposition to frigates if he is pushed to reject them. Mr Lange had been cemented in as Prime Minister by his defence of the anti-nuclear stand. A greater electoral risk is posed by giving the thumbs down to Australianbuilt frigates. Mr Palmer is a more conservative, cautious politician than Mr Lange and is unlikely to want to take this risk. More likely is a compromise. Instead of buying two Anzac frigates now and perhaps two later, he may hope to convince caucus to buy just one or two frigates to keep the Australians on side. Such a compromise is distasteful to either port in the frigate argument. But it would fit the steady-as-she-goes helmsmanship that will mark the Prime Ministership of Mr Palmer.