The ever-changing face of Labour

Steve Maharey, as Education Minister, announces a new $5.9 million school in Napier. He says Labour is determined to see its policy programmes through. Picture / Hawkes Bay Today

Would the radical socialists and trade unionists who formed the Labour Party in 1916 recognise the early 21st-century version as "Labour"?

The party's founders would recognise today's party very easily because the values that informed them - concern about social justice - still inform us.

They would understand that what we are doing is seeking different policies in the context of the 21st century, just as Michael Savage, Peter Fraser and Walter Nash, some of those founders, subsequently had to adjust policies to match the times they lived in.

Which leaders have been most influential in shaping the party's direction, and why?

Savage - for setting up the welfare state and because he accommodated Labour with capital. The 1916 version of the party was a socialist party that would have nationalised most of the economy. Savage accepted that the economy would remain largely privately owned. The big thing for him was putting in place the welfare state.

Fraser - because he gave the party longevity in office and consolidated the welfare state following Savage's death. Without Fraser, I am not sure we would have had a welfare state. Fraser made it such a fixture that the National Party did not dare dismantle it after winning the 1949 election.

Lange - because he made us proud to be Kiwis in a way I don't think other leaders have done. He took New Zealand into the world - that's a huge legacy.

And Helen [Clark]. She should be remembered as the person who led us out of the aberration of "Rogernomics" and tied together the distinctive legacies of previous leaders to forge a modern forward-looking social democratic party.

What defines Labour from other parties is the belief that the state can be wielded as a positive instrument of change. The question has been to what degree. Having swung from the heavy state intervention of the 1930s to rolling back the state in the 1980s, Labour now seems to have struck a balance where it is not afraid to use state intervention as a means to a necessary end, but does not see it as a desirable end in itself - the rescues of Air New Zealand and New Zealand Rail being the obvious examples. Do you agree?

What Helen Clark and Michael Cullen stand for is not a shrinking of the state or a growing of the state, but a reshaping of the state. They have tried to bring about a "smart state" - one that can work in partnership with business or the community rather than it doing everything.

It makes it different from what has gone on before. But it is not inconsistent.

You have previously talked of Labour steering a "third way" between the unfettered free market and rigid forms of state ownership or provision. You and the Prime Minister now describe Labour's version of social democracy as "the New Zealand way". Aren't such labels a fancy way of disguising Labour's ideological drift towards the centre of the political spectrum?

No. I think there is an identifiable ideology consistent with the social justice agenda. Just look at the policies which take effect from today - more affordable health care for those aged 45 to 64, rates rebates for superannuitants, a big investment in early childhood education and the extension of paid parental leave to the self-employed.

The big change for all Labour and social democratic parties - be they Finnish, German, English or New Zealand - has been coming to grips with the economy. Centre-left parties had to start taking a much more positive view of economic policy. We were seen as serious about social justice - but unable to run a chequebook.

Though he was an aberration, Roger Douglas was trying to change that image. We also had to make that adjustment. For many people, that adjustment has been a sign we have lost our way. For me, it's simply the realisation that to be relevant, Labour had to talk about how it would run the economy and what that meant for people and their families.

Talking of Sir Roger, doesn't his running of a radical market-based reform agenda in the 1980s, which became more and more at odds with traditional party thinking, indicate that Labour's ideological foundations are not very robust?

Margaret Thatcher was an aberration. Ronald Reagan was an aberration. And I think Roger Douglas was, too. They were all expressions of an inevitable breakdown of the consensus surrounding the welfare state.

But I think people's sense of obligation to one another always prevails over dog-eat-dog individualism. We have gone through that reaction to the welfare state and centre-left parties have re-emerged with a more balanced message when it comes to social assistance.

Doesn't Labour look at times as if it is governing for governing's sake?

No. The thing that people criticise us for and which leads to that kind of statement is that we are now in our third term. People have got used to Labour Governments that burn like fireworks in the night for a very short time as they introduce a radical range of reforms - and then they are gone. The party is determined that will not happen.

The kind of change Helen is interested in is incremental. It takes a while to implement. We are very careful. We have tried to establish an image over the past six years of being capable and competent. I don't think we should be criticised for that.

How much has the British Labour Party and Blairism been an influence on New Zealand Labour?

Not as much as people think. The parties in continental Europe were more influential. But they don't speak English. The real impact came when their ideas were picked up by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton and were popularised.

Why we have been more clear about the "New Zealand Way" notion is that we know you cannot just read off policies from Britain or Finland and say, "Let's try them here." I think the concept of globalisation has been over-rated. We are not all going to end up living in some large McDonald's. We are still going to have a strong sense of national identity.

There seems to be an absence of the "big idea" to take Labour through its third term in government. Has Labour run out of ideas?

The big idea is transformation, making big shifts in the way the country operates. We are trying to get a more comprehensive package of transformation across our three broad themes - the economy, the family and national identity.

So it is more likely there will be "bigger" ideas around energy reform, telecommunications reform, early intervention in the family area, because we can see so many of our problems are coming from what happens in those first five years.

Rather than there being one dominant policy like Working for Families was in the last term, it has got to be a package of things. We are working hard on that. So far you have seen only bits and pieces of it, such as the decision to shake up telecommunications with the unbundling of the local loop.

When was the last time you heard a truly radical speech at a Labour Party conference?

Helen's at the conference last year. And her speech opening Parliament. It is a matter of laying down a platform for long-term change. It may not be seen as radical on the day, but everyone will say, "They stuck to that and real change came about."

There is much talk in the party about renewal - it was the theme of the summer school organised by the party's youth wing, for example. How is that renewal going to manifest itself?

Renewal is the name of the game if we are going to be here for a long period of time. New people are coming through. It is about looking at policies afresh every time you win an election because you have got a new coalition arrangement. It's about new policies coming through - but still being consistent in policy direction.