Tension Dispelled By Mr Marshall’s Speech

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32359, 27 July 1970, Page 24

Tension Dispelled By Mr Marshall’s Speech

(From Our Own Reporter)

ROTORUA, July 26.

Delegates and officers at the National Party conference are in no doubt about the fact that the 10-minute speech by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Marshall) yesterday morning was the turning point in what was promising to be an increasingly restive meeting of the party.

Mr Marshall was given a standing ovation when he finished his address, and from that moment almost all the atmosphere of tension and grievance that had been building up was dispelled.

Mr Marshall’s announcement of plans to overhaul industrial law promptly dampened a rising spirit among many delegates that threatened to present the party’s policy committee with a list of tough and awkward remits on industrial relations and other topics. His timely injection of news that the Government was prepared to act on matters about which delegates had strong feelings appeared to influence the debates in the remit committees that met during the afternoon. Many proposals were either modified considerably or tossed out completely. The Minister of Finance (Mr Muldoon) had begn to shift the mood of the conference on Friday evening with a cool assessment of the economy and Budget measures. Last night delegates were applauding mention of the Minister of Education (Mr Taiboys), who. 24 hours earlier, had been the subject of bitter criticism, including one delegate’s suggestion that his thinking on teachers’ salaries and holidays was that to be expected from a “bigoted gumdigger.” During a question-and-answer hour last evening Mr Taiboy’s Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Mr G. F. Gair) vigorously defended his Minister.

“His work is not to be judged by a 10-minute appearance on television. I have been working with him for six months and 1 could not ask for a more dedicated, well-informed and earnest Minister of Education,” said Mr Gair to loud applause.

Mr Taiboys has so far declined appeals from colleagues and delegates to address the full conference, preferring to stand by his planned appearance tonight at a meeting of the Young Nations organisation. Respecting a behind-the-scenes reminder that this conference is a forum for ordinary members of the party. Ministers and members of Parliament have refrained from entering the floor debates on remits. The Prime Minister (Sir Keith Holyoake) made only passing reference to the mood of the conference in his Saturday evening address. “I have been delighted to hear the ideas that have been thrown up,” he said. “A ferment is at work in this party. That is what I want to see.” And later: “The individual is still paramount and always will be while there is a National Government, and while a National Government is backed by a party that is determined to hold to pledged objects. From time to time, from the body of the hall we have been reminded of the principles we stand for. that we are veering away. I welcome that.” Sir Keith was not induced by the obvious interest of delegates in such specific topics as prices and industrial unrest to depart from his usual style of conference address. Although he referred to his work as Prime Minister he spoke as Party Leader and emphasised his theme taken from the party objects: “To . ensure the greatest possible measure of personal freedom.” Mild Rebuke? Delegates probably read a [ mild rebuke into his assertion ’ that “people themselves are a lot to blame for Government intrusion and intervention.” “There is far too much of the catch cry. ‘The Government should do something about it’,” he said. “If the Government does something about it it is going to cost something in freedom, or cash or both, and nobod? is keen to pay the price. “Yet this type of political schizophrenia is rampant. Ministers and I get hundreds of deputations over a year. Nearly everyone urges the Government to spend more money. Yet the minute they get out of my door they put on their taxpayers’ hats and urge the Government to cut back on spending. “The Government is responsible for the welfare and development of the country. The Government does have a major part to play, but we believe, by incentives and not by direction or dictation. That is what we have done.” One of the liveliest debates of the day was on a remit urging a new approach by the Government towards Rhodesia leading to eventual recognition of the Smith Government. The experience of Mr M. J. Bennion (Marsden) as a colonial administrator in Africa

clearly told heavily in the debate. His short speech on the “bigoted, narrow” members of the Smith Cabinet brought several speakers to the rostrum to contend with supporters of the remit from the Wailace electorate. The conference firmly voted the proposal out and the result drew applause. In committee sessions yesterday afternoon delegates rejected remits calling for the end of compulsory union

nwiuoership and for legislation making employers or unions liable for damages claims “where their deliberate actions have caused financial loss to innocent parties.”

Three farming remits were rejected (on subsidies for farm pumping systems for dairy effluent, on a national wheat price, and further subsidies on farm costs), and one on fertiliser subsidies was amended by its sponsors to accord with Budget proposals.

Another committee dis--1 carded a Lyttelton request 1 that the Government cease [ running “two economies in ■ New Zealand”—a remit de- , signed to restrict the protection of secondary industries. The same committee urged a ! hastening of the replacement of import controls by selective tariffs, but rejected a request to exempt all woollen j goods from import control. ' It favoured the investga-1 tion of the staggering of I working hours by agreement with the workers in a factory; or industry It sought the [ reform of purchases on the) lay-by system and the disclosure, by law. of the full cost I [ of credit in the purchase of [ consumer goods. These and other committee j decisions await confirmation i by the full conference tomor- i row morning. A decision to remove from : a remit reference to the abo- i lition of the Maori seats in j Parliament has left the I[ party’s policy unchanged, and |1 the conference will now be j: asked to endorse a proposal ’: that the party encourage ! Maoris to stand in European i seats. , There was little opposition j to a remit urging the repeal of the Tenancy Act. Voting [ was close on a request to the Government to clarify the, obligations and rights of de-! monstrators.

Maximum penalties were considered adequate when a committee debated a call for higher penalties for molesting children and for unprovoked assault.

Prison sentences did not help society, or welfare workers, said the opponents of this remit There should be more effective ways of counselling offenders, they said. Stronger measures against vandalism were also rejected. This committee turned down proposals for the suspension of driving licences for crimes of violence, for regulations to define the powers of the Broadcasting Authority to maintain “a responsible balance” in public alfairs programmes, and for greater use of the news media to “communicate Government thinking.” It approved of matching the price of electricity more closely with the local distribution costs.

The education committee will ask the conference to support its recommendations on legislation to effect proposals in the report of the Committee on Drug Abuse, Liberalising students’ boarding bursaries, improving training for farming, a larger vocational guidance service, more immigration, and on the reconstitution of the Nature Conservation Council.

Three taxation remits were withdrawn in the light of the recent Budget.