Govt gets the wobbles

Press, 9 December 1989, Page 24

Govt gets the wobbles

The gloss has gone from the Government’s performance and cracks are starting to show in the carefully nurtured appearance of a cohesive administration, as BRENDON BURNS reports from Wellington.

THE HONEYMOON period is well and truly at an end for Geoffrey Palmer. As 1989 ebbs away, his Government is trailing 17 per cent in the opinion polls and the pressure is starting to tell. He came into office four short months ago, won plaudits for selecting a woman deputy, and cleverly delayed his way into a compromise decision on Anzac frigates. There was no pretending he was David Lange. He told people he was “somewhat austere.” What Mr Palmer lacked in Oratory, he was judged to balance by management skills. A bonus was provided in that the debilitating internecine war between Mr Lange and Roger Douglas was at an end. Continuing improvements in New Zealand’s balance of trade, lowered inflation, and the dawn of a fragile but promising economic recovery assisted a mood of cautious optimism. Winston Peters continued to attract attention with his antics such as opposing Anzac ships, highlighting Opposition disunity. Those were the heady, honeymoon first weeks of Geoffrey Palmer, Prime Minister. No-one, including himself, expected it to last. The National Party was soon back in front in the polls. The more worrying issue for the Government is its own performance. Quite suddenly, the image of a competent, little-style but plenty of substance administration is looking somewhat tarnished. In recent weeks, issues to arise include: • A clarification of who will decide Maori resource claims. • An awakening to the parlous state of the Labour Party in Auckland. • An attempt to distance the Government from the report it commissioned on the police. • Claims of corruption involving Government members. • A fumbled attempt by Mr Palmer to chart New Zealand’s future direction. • A speech by Roger Douglas stating the Government was “coasting.” These are all issues of political management. Additionally, the Government’s attempts to promote an aura of competence are damaged by economic fall-out resulting from the October, 1987, crash, most particularly the D.F.C. collapse. One view is that Mr Palmer can be held responsible for the aftershocks of the crash; he can argue that he is not to blame for these. But he is accountable for the Government’s political performance since he became Prime Minister.

In some areas, the track record is creditable. He won plaudits at his first Commonwealth Prime Minister’s meeting for his low-key approach, helping achieve some important first steps towards addressing environmental issues. His steerage of the drift-net fishing ban in the South Pacific has gained him friends in the region. But drift-netting is not an issue to catch the imagination of a majority of voters, more concerned with unemployment, race relations, and crime. Mr Palmer’s move to clarify who will decide Maori resource claims may, in the longer term, assist the Government. In the interim, it smacks' of trying to put the lid back ah Pandora’s box which he opened. It will take a Herculean effort by the Government to convince non-Maori voters that Maori land claims had to be addressed. Such an effort will to extend to reassuring people that their private property is not threatened. This should have been an essential extract in every speech given by every Government M.P. in the last year or two. The race relations issue is critical to Labour’s chances of retaining more than a handful of its seats in Auckland. Labour’s own polling shows the party could lose red-ribbon seats such as Te Atatu, Roskill, Otara, and Manurewa — all presently held by Cabinet Ministers. Mr Palmer announced last month that he would spend more time in Auckland. There are those in his caucus who would question whether such visits will do the Government any good. Even M.P.s who voted for Mr Palmer in August’s leadership vote hold doubts about his ability to project himself and the Government. His “somewhat austere” style will fare most poorly in free-flowing Auckland. His deputy, Helen Clark, while retaining a ring of competence, is no better placed to inject some enthusiasm into the voting public. The pair have been dubbed the Easter Island statues. Mr Palmer chose Auckland this week to deliver an indication of what life would be like under a re-elected Labour Government. His "Shape of New Zealand’s Future” speech fell somewhat flat, however, when it was realised that the speech seemed to stretch the Budget’s timetable for low inflation and interest rates. Mr Caygill’s July Budget spoke of inflation being down to 2 per cent or less in 1992, and interest

rates at 7 to 10 per cent. The Auckland speech by Mr Palmer included the inflation and interest rate targets as something he wanted achieved by the end of 1993. A revised version of the speech was hurriedly issued, with emphasis inserted to say there was no conflict with the Budget forecasts. A minor hiccup it may have been, but one that did not enhance the image of the Government. Similarly, Mr Palmer had approved last week’s speech by Roger Douglas to the Mont Pelerin society conference in Christchurch. His approval centred on the speech being given in private. Even when the speech became public — a great stack of them was available in the Christchurch Town Hall — Mr Palmer remained unconcerned. He did not share Mr Douglas’s view that the Government was “coasting” and compromising on tough decisions. “But I can’t for the life of me get excited about it.” Mr Palmer’s lack of concern was not mirrored by his Minister of Finance. The same day as the Prime Ministerial shoulders were being shrugged, Mr Caygill was on the offensive against Mr Douglas and other critics. He later told “The Press” that certain comments including those of his Cabinet colleague, were likely to reinforce short-term economic pessimism. Mr Palmer’s ambivalence towards Roger Douglas was contrary to his stance in August, when Mr Douglas advocated more Labour market reforms. The Government has ruled out

such changes. Mr Palmer excused the comments of the newly re-elected Cabinet member, saying the speech invitation to Mr Douglas had been issued and accepted while he was still a backbencher. Further such advocacy of reforms outside his police and immigration portfolios was not expected, Mr Palmer said at the time. Yet, four months later, he approved a speech by Mr Douglas which promotes more reform and accuses the Government of “coasting.” Even if the speech notes had not been published, an audience of 80 people had listened to Mr Douglas. Among them was Opposition finance spokeswoman, Ruth Richardson, and Business Roundtable executive director, Roger Kerr. Neither can be listed as politically insignificant. Mr Douglas’s message was that the Government was resting on the brakes and it was time to hit the accelerator. “Speed is essential and it is impossible to go too fast.” Mr Palmer has rejected that prescription, fearing the political consequences of a Government which sprints ahead of a bewildered public. He warned years ago of the dangers of “speed wobbles.” But voters can also be lost by a Government which fails to show a firm sense of direction. While Mr Palmer talks of consolidation, he springs a radical change in the country’s shop trading hours. The Cabinet is still considering the privatisation of Telecom, explicitly rebuffed in Labour’s 1987 manifesto, and this is causing some resentment among backbench Government M.P.s.

Such contradictions have arisen innumerable times during the course of the fourth Labour Government. At first they were answered by the booming oratory of David Lange. Then, as his split with Roger Douglas developed, the party factionalised and fought out the arguments. Geoffrey Palmer cannot inspire his party out of their differences, anymore than he can oratorically induce voters to focus on the good news and forget their gripes with his Government. He obviously does not want a return to public feuding within Labour’s ranks and seems prepared to tolerate Roger Douglas promoting his reform agenda. The price for this is a small chip at the Government’s credibility. When the chips are so heavily down for Labour, it is a luxury that cannot be afforded, particularly by an administration that hopes to win votes with an image of competence. The episode brings to mind an apochryphal joke doing the rounds in Wellington. In the account I heard, Geoffrey Palmer and Roger Douglas went duck hunting. After some hours a solitary duck appeared and both men fired. The duck fell to the ground, dead. The men argued over who shot it. Mr Douglas proposed they decide who got the duck by kicking each other in the groin until someone gave in. Mr Palmer agreed and took the first kick, which floored him. After some minutes he managed to get to his feet and prepared to kick Roger Douglas. “No, it’s all right,” Roger said. “You keep the duck, mate.”