Still working after 90 years

When Finance Minister Michael Cullen urged workers to show restraint in their wage demands a few weeks ago, eyebrows were raised.

After all, it wasn't what some supporters expected from the centre-left Labour Party which - as its name suggests - was founded 90 years ago in the industrial labour movement.

But as union leaders publicly bristled at Cullen's comments, he was backed by senior Labour figures.

As the party now reflects on 90 years of history, it ponders the future in a political environment far removed from the world in which Labour was created.

Party president Mike Williams is adamant the party is still true to its roots.

"I think if you actually look at what the founding mothers and fathers wanted to achieve, we've certainly stayed very, very close to those principles." In his view, Labour's fundamental concerns have always revolved around jobs, hospitals, schools and children.

He notes New Zealand has the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD, while the number of children living in poverty has reduced.

The uptake of tertiary education has increased and "you're just not hearing any big squeaks" from the health system - aside from the junior doctors' industrial action.

In Williams' eyes, Helen Clark's Labour looks good in its third consecutive term in Government.

Sure, the party "wobbled away" from its roots during the Sir Roger Douglas era of market reforms in the 1980s, but Williams says "this Helen Clark Government is recognisably Labour in my view".

Others aren't so sure.

Among the critics questioning Labour's place on the political spectrum is Laila Harre, a former Alliance MP who held a ministerial position inside the Labour-led Government of 1999 to 2002.

Now national secretary of the National Distribution Union, Harre is concerned Labour hasn't recovered from the Douglas era.

"It's questionable whether Labour is now wanting to, or capable of, leading the charge on behalf of the disenfranchised - which of course is where its origins lay," Harre says.

"What fundamentally changed Labour was the experience of the 1980s, when the party drifted as far from its roots as it could ever have done. I don't think the party has recovered."

She points out the recent extension of Labour's Working For Families assistance scheme misses the poorest children.

The idea behind the wider scheme may be in line with Labour's basic philosophy, she says, but the extension suggests a "very large amount" of political expediency ahead of the tightly contested 2005 election.

Since regaining Government in 1999, Labour has gone some way to restoring employment law and other key policy areas to where its core constituency might expect them to be.

Today measures come into law that might be thought of as typically Labour - rates rebates, subsidies for doctor visits, changes that benefit the elderly and early childhood groups.

It has been careful to acknowledge the importance of economic growth and paint a picture of prudent management of the country's purse strings. Michael Cullen's call for wage restraint was simply an example of the fiscal responsibility which typifies Labour, the party argues.

Peter Harris, a former adviser to Cullen and union economist, says Labour has made the argument for economic sustainability for decades.

"I wouldn't have thought Cullen's views are all that out of line with historical Labour stuff."

Sir Roger Douglas, the architect of the 1980s economic reforms, accuses the Clark Government of "chucking money around" at the health and education systems without a positive outcome and says that Labour isn't representing "the poor New Zealander" in the way it used to.

"I think Labour has moved from a party which believed in giving people a hand-up ... to a position where they concentrate on giving people a hand-out. In turn, that's created a huge dependency industry in New Zealand."

While he isn't happy with Labour's performance, Sir Roger isn't certain its time in Government is up yet.

"Frankly it doesn't say much for them, it just says that the National Party isn't as good as it should be. And who's going to be the National Party's partner? My second party, Act, isn't particularly interested in dealing with the issues these days ... [they] would rather be dancing."

So can Labour become a regular fixture in Government?

Since its birth in 1916, the party has been in Government for roughly a third of its existence.

The party's president is blunt about its prospects. "The short answer is I believe that under MMP, Labour can be more often in Government than not," Mike Williams says.

Labour lost elections to National in the late 1970s and early 1980s under the first-past-the-post system despite getting a higher percentage of the vote. But under MMP, Labour has displayed an ability to work with a wide range of political parties.

Perhaps one of the biggest risks to the party holding the Treasury benches regularly is the question of succession.

Under MMP, rejuvenation is arguably more difficult because MPs who lose an electorate seat can return on the party list.

While Clark and Cullen obviously don't fit in that scenario, at some point replacements will need to be found. They will leave enormous holes and questions are being raised about who will step up.

Harre says a successor to Clark is not obvious. "Labour has had the huge fortune of Helen Clark performing extremely well as a Prime Minister, and there's a level of public confidence in her leadership which I think is almost unequalled - certainly in my lifetime."

Sir Roger also says he can't see a logical successor, although "I would have hoped [Phil] Goff could, possibly."

Williams is recruiting, and claims to have some "high profile people" contacting him to say they're interested in becoming MPs.

They come from a variety of backgrounds, including "high finance, business, and sport", he says, refusing to go any further.

Enough, he says, is being done to address the question of succession.