Former Labour Party President, now Cabinet Minister Margaret Wilson talks of the role the Party played during the Lange Years …

Victoria University of Wellington

When I came to prepare for this conference I discovered that I had little personal memory of this period and that those who have written about it tend not to mention the Party, only the Parliamentary Party. I was therefore forced to refer to my own essay “Labour in Government 1984-1987”, which was an attempt to try and explain the role of the Party during that period and its relationship to its government from my perspective as Party president at that time.

A quick read of that essay reminded me why humans are so resilient –we have a capacity to forget. It did remind me however how the Party is frequently discounted in any analysis of government. The fact this conference begins with a session on the party is a tribute to the professionalism of the organizers.

In some ways it is not surprising little attention is paid to the role of the Party. The role of the political party is little researched or understood within the context of our political system. Political parties are private organizations with a public purpose. They are the vehicle under which individuals gather to work together to achieve a commonly accepted set of goals or objectives. The Labour Party is the longest established political party – over 90 years old - and as such has a considerable history and tradition that influences its policies and mode of operation.

Within the New Zealand political context, the Labour Party’s historic role has been to produce what is now fashionably called ‘conviction’ politics and politicians. It is the Party the people elect in times of crisis. It is the Party of ideas, of reform, and the Party that does not shirk the hard decisions. As such the Party attracts people of strong will, with definite ideas, and a determination to make a difference.

It has always represented those people in society who do not have great personal wealth, or access to power. Its policies reflect this section in society. There has a pragmatic understanding that wealth must be created before it is distributed. The rights and freedom of individuals are understood to be best achieved through protecting and promoting equality and equal opportunities for all. And it has always seen the development of New Zealand as an independent culturally inclusive society.

The reason I start with this analysis of how the Labour Party sees itself in the political spectrum, is because I think it is necessary to appreciate the role played by the Party during the period of the Fourth Labour Government, and in particular the first three years. It may also explain why the economic policies of the Fourth Labour Government were seen by many members as being at odds with its traditional approach to economic matters. And why many felt betrayed by the government’s embracing of neo-liberal economic policies.

I am aware that many commentators of that time characterized the Party as either being obstructive to the Government’s goal of restructuring New Zealand, or not obstructive enough in preventing the Government to govern and not bring down its demise earlier. As the Party President at the time I bore much of the criticism from the left and the right, and from their perspective I am sure it was justified. Roger Douglas has voiced his criticism of the Party, as did Jim Anderton. Both eventually resigned from the Labour Party to form new Parties that left the Labour Party free to rebuild from its core base and within a decade be elected to form a government.

I think it is fair to say that when the Labour government was elected in 1984, the Party was locked in an ideological struggle as to how to move beyond the excesses of the Muldoon era. The Party membership was not opposed to change, it knew change was required. It was the nature of the change that was the subject of endless policy debates and political positioning to effect power. And the essence of the difference was how best to protect the interests of those people in our society who had little personal wealth or power. Would a free market approach really do this? What was to be the role of the state? Would greater inequality result and damage the life chances of those we represented? These were just some of the questions that lay at the root of the differences.

The election of David Lange as Parliamentary Party leader clearly signaled that the economic policies of the right would prevail in the Party’s manifesto for the 1984 election. Those of us in the opposing faction renewed our efforts to ensure the policies reflected the positions of those we represented. As it turned out, the early election pre-empted that debate and the ensured the policies of structural adjustment prevailed. The financial crisis created by Muldoon provided the opportunity and the necessity to move quickly to set a totally new course in economic policy.

The fact that the Party was to be marginalized from any future contribution to economic policy was apparent from the outset. The exclusion of Party officials from the Economic Summit was a public declaration by government that there was no role for the Party in policy formation. Of course the attempts to exclude the Party only served to intensify the opposition, and eventually ensured the splits to the left and the right of the Party. The lack of a Parliamentary opposition had also in made the Party the only effective opposition. This was not a role the Party sought but it was best positioned to articulate the concerns of those most affected by the changes.

It is important to note however that during those first three years, every efforts was made to maintain engagement between the party organization and the Parliamentary Party. Apart from Party conferences and council meetings, the Joint Council of Labour was revived as a forum for the government to explain its policies, and the trade unions to put forward their views. The leadership of Jimmy Knox did not make this easy. He was not given to sustained rational discussion, and Roger Douglas had little tolerance for long tirades.

It was also apparent that members of Cabinet, in particular the Minister of Labour and Richard Prebble were determined on the creation of a labour market in which there was no effective collective representation. The Labour Relations Act 1987 was the result of long negotiation between the party, Ministers, and officials, and was an attempt to provide a way to introduce greater flexibility, while preserving for individuals the right to collective representation. The story of the relationship between industrial and political labour during this period has yet to be told and this is not the place to tell it.

An attempt at engagement between the Party members and their government that was a little more successful was the economic debate within the party. The traveling road show at which arguments for and against the economic policies were presented and debated at least raised the general level of discussion within the Party. This exercise did lead to greater understanding of the government’s reasons for promoting the policies they did. And if the government had not attempted to apply the same approach to social policy and to remove the infrastructure of the public service and wholesale privatization of assets that had been accumulated by generations of New Zealanders, there would have been greater support from within the Party.

It is sometimes forgotten that there was a range of views within the Party on the question of the appropriate economic policy. For example, the GST proposal was only passed at the annual conference with the support of the Service Workers Union. This was after the Party had gained agreement that the GST policy must ensure low income earners were not disadvantaged. The family assistance packages emerged soon thereafter. It would be a false picture therefore to assume there was not engagement and that that engagement did not produce results for all the party and the government.

It was clear however that engagement with the party was time consuming and frustrating for many Ministers. It was a constraint on the operation of government and not appreciated by some Ministers or their officials. From the official’s perspective, once a government was elected, the Party ceased to exist and their Ministers were assumed to have become apolitical. While that may be a correct constitutional position, in reality in created considerable tensions. For party members the government was their government in a way that was different from the rest of the country. The party had supported them to their present position and therefore obligations were owed in terms of access and performance.

One issue where the interests of the Party members were to prevail was the non-nuclear policy. The story of this issue has been told. This issue, unlike the economic policy, united the Party and had considerable support from Caucus as well. It was the one issue that I recall when I had to indicate to the Cabinet that the Party would be prepared to have a major split from the parliamentary party. After considerable debate, the party executive informed Geoffrey Palmer, who was Acting Prime Minister at the time, that the Party would not support nuclear powered and/or weaponed ships entering New Zealand.

There was an argument whether or not we should support nuclear powered ships if they did not have nuclear weapons. This was eventually rejected because the damage to the environment would still be considerable if there was an accident, and also there was no trust that such a ship would not have nuclear weapons. The United States of course maintained a neither confirm or deny policy.

The fact that the government decided to pursue a policy consistent with that of the Party’s resolution was due to the fact the executive did not want a major confrontation over an issue that at the end of the day was not as important as the rest of the economic reform programme. There was also a serious question as to whether the Cabinet had the votes in caucus. It was also understood that this policy had the support of the majority of New Zealanders and not only the Labour Party members.

Of course governments must govern in the interests of all New Zealanders, but there is a tension between whose interests prevail in a particular case. It was the management of that relationship between government and Party that was a major factor in the success of the government at the 1987 election. While the differences had not disappeared, there was an understanding that success at the election was a priority for both the Party and the government. Throughout the campaign the tensions continued and were seen in the nature of the campaign itself, and in the selection of candidates. Much of the negative media received by the Party at the time was over candidate selection.

I had come to the conclusion by the end of election that the divisions in the Party were too deep to heal or too manage. The struggle was simply who controlled the Labour Party in the future. For the Party, election success was therefore important to ensure the maintenance of a viable organizational structure. Equally important was to ensure a strong Party leadership that maintained connection with the Parliamentary Party. The fact that the Labour Party did survived to form government within a decade is a tribute to those individuals who worked so hard during this period.

It was also due to the fact that Roger Douglas after the election unveiled the next phase of his plan. Although this is often associated with the flat tax proposal, the programme was basically an attempt to apply the economic principles to social policy. This was the step too far for those remaining faithful to the Labour Party, and also importantly led to David Lange publicly criticizing the programme and eventually Roger Douglas and others leaving the Party to form ACT.

Although David Lange never had an easy relationship with the Party, I had determined from the time I was elected President that I should engage with him to see if we could find ways to work together. It was this engagement that led to the estrangement between myself and Jim Anderton who considered that the Party should have taken a position of outright opposition to the David Lange and the executive. While I considered such a position appropriate when in opposition, history had taught us that it is important to minimize conflict when in government. I therefore determined to try and negotiate policy changes from within and not through public criticism, unless absolutely necessary.

I was aware that my engagement with the government was a source of criticism from the left of the Party. I understood their frustration and source of anger that a Labour government was not producing the policies they supported. I also knew that politically their programme did not have majority support in the Party or the country. While New Zealanders are innovative and open to change, we are also a conservative people who value stability. Our history tell us that the left contributes to our political life through initiating and supporting political movements, and on occasions aligning itself with the centre of the Labour party. It has considerable influence from time to time, but has never achieved mainstream electoral support.

Although I had been positioned as being on the left, I saw my role as being trying to achieve such as possible for those people Labour represented. A Labour government gave you access, therefore it seemed irresponsible not to take advantage of it. I therefore met with David Lange for an hour every week of the three years I was President. We met before caucus, which gave us both the opportunity to talk through how to manage the conflict, and differences that were played out every week in that forum. My successors continued to have a good relationship with him and thus maintain an essential connection between the government and the Party. This connection became even more important during the next three years as the government started to unravel.

Although the Fourth Labour Government has been, and will continue to be remembered for the programme of structural adjustment, it is important not to forget that many people in the Party kept the political agenda for social and cultural justice alive and even advanced it. Much of my time was spent trying to ensure women were treated equally and given equal opportunities. The foundations for the advancement of women today were laid in the 1970s and 1980s. It was also during the first term of the Fourth Labour government that the Party worked with Geoffrey Palmer and Koro Wetere to gain the support necessary to legislate for redress of historical grievances under the Treaty of Waitangi back to 1940. We recognized that we could not progress as people as long as we did not confront the injustices of our past.

The first three years of the Fourth Labour government were highly productive years. This is not surprising after a decade of Muldoon playing King Canute and trying to stop the influences of the world intruding on New Zealand. The Fourth Labour government threw open the doors to the world and the winds of change nearly blow us away. The Party did not doubt that change was required. The argument was always over the nature of the changes. An assessment of the role of the Party will depend on what interests you were pursuing at the time. For me the task was to ensure the survival of the Party at a time when both the left and the right wanted to claim exclusive ownership. In such a struggle it is important to remain grounded. The Labour Party was formed to represent the interests of people without wealth or power in the political system. My touchstone was always whether the policies advantaged the interests of these people.

The way in which those interests are expressed and represented varies from time to time. What cannot change however is the engagement between the represented and those who represent them. It is a constant conversation. Whenever one party dominates the conversation the balance is broken and the Party and the government becomes dysfunctional. From my perspective that conversation did continue during the first three years and while at times it was heated, abusive and very direct, it was alive and people were engaged. People took their politics seriously and were prepared to commit time and energy to it.

I conclude with two points. The first is an apology to those who came seeking character analysis of the chief players at the time. While I came to learn that individuals do make a difference in politics, I also learnt that individuals are driven by complex motives and simplistic judgments on others reflects more on those making the judgment. Secondly, I make the observation that the role of the political Party in the future deserves analysis. I would suggest that MMP, technology, and globalisation are having a major impact on the role of the political Party.