Labour Party will not desert ‘middle ground’

Press, 30 June 1983, Page 9

Labour Party will not desert ‘middle ground’

NZPA staff correspondent London The New Zealand Labour Party would not desert the “middle ground” and lurch in the direction of the British Labour Party, said the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Palmer, in London after watching Labour’s defeat in Britain. “If there was ever any suggestion we should somehow lurch in the direction of the British Labour Party, the lesson is that it ought to be resisted,” he said. Mr Palmer was speaking in an interview at the end of a three-week visit to Britain as the guest of the Central Office of Information. The British Labour Party was in a totally different situation from that of the New Zealand Labour Party, he said. It had been infiltrated by the Militant Tendency who were Trotskyists. “There has been no such development in New Zealand and there will not be,” Mr Palmer said. That infiltration, coupled with other factors, had led to the split which caused the formation of the Social Democratic Party in Britain. “There has been no such split in New Zealand and there will not be,” Mr Palmer said. The British Labour Party’s election manifesto had been in many respects an extreme document.

“The New Zealand Labour Party is not going to desert the middle ground,” Mr Palmer said. In New Zealand, the Labour Party was not dependent on the trade unions for its finance. “In many respects the British Labour Party is two parties — the Right and the Left. We have our differences but we do not split into ideological wings in that way,” he said. The British Labour Party had fought a very poor campaign in the recent election and had not concentrated its efforts on the important issues, he said. It was out of touch with the people it represented. “It was the ordinary British Labour Party voter it deserted on this occasion.” Mr Palmer, who has had extensive discussions with House of Commons officials and members of Parliament, said that the new select committee system which had been in use over the last three years, appeared to have been a great success and New Zealand could learn a lot from it. The result had been a shift in power from the Executive to the House of Commons. “In looking at Government departments and financial control they are way ahead of us,” Mr Palmer said.

New committees had been set up and Government departments were

kept under their thumb.

“It makes life much more difficult for civil servants and for Ministers. Ministers have to defend their policies. You don’t get incompetent Ministers in the House of Commons. If they are, they get sacked,” he said.

“A large number of our Ministers would not be able to stand up to the competence level of these Ministers,” Mr Palmer said. However, the size of the New Zealand Parliament had to be increased if members of Parliament were to do their job properly. “You cannot have effective committees if you have not got enough members,” Mr Palmer said.

New Zealand drastically needed a committee to examine regulations. This was done in Britain by a joint committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords which met every week.

Mr Palmer said he had been invited to lunch by Morgan Grenfell, the merchant bankers, who wanted to know what his party’s attitude was to overseas investment in New Zealand. “I said it was clear that New Zealand would need funds for continued development. We would continue to borrow, but the level of borrowing was a matter for concern.” It was clear New Zealand was regarded as a good risk because of its stable environment, Mr Palmer said.