The Press WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4,1971. National’s confidence

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32676, 4 August 1971, Page 16

The Press WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4,1971. National’s confidence

Delegates to the National Party Conference in Dunedin ended their meetings with their confidence in the party and their hopes for another election victory considerably heightened. Some doubts remain about the ability of the party to match the improving administrative machinery of the Labour Party; and no-one can yet predict the effects of electoral boundary changes next year. Clearly the conference was determined to concern itself with issues relevant to the needs of the times; and it succeeded at least to the extent that delegates dispersed well satisfied that they had helped in the formulation of a policy that will return the Government to office.

One of the most important functions of the conference is to bring members closely into touch with the Parliamentary section of the party; except for a few formal speeches, the Parliamentarians are expected only to listen to the views of the constituency membership. There was no repetition in Dunedin of the concerted attack on the Government that distinguished the last conference at .Rotorua. Some dissatisfaction with the Government’s performance was still to be noticed at Dunedin; but criticism was sporadic and lacked the bite of a year ago. Delegates left no doubt of their wish to strengthen the hand of the Government to deal with unionists they believe to be fomenting industrial unrest against the wishes, as they also believe, of a majority of union members. Their views on this, question surely reflected those of a large proportion of electors.

Of the Parliamentary section, only the Prime Minister and four Ministers addressed the conference; and on two occasions the Minister of Labour (Mr Marshall) assured the delegates that the Government’s approach to industrial affairs would be firm, that the Government would “ watch these Reds ”, but that too much should not be expected from legislative action. If Mr Marshall did not completely convince the delegates that the Government was ready to take the strong action they wanted, Mr Muldoon, during his speech on the economy, could hardly have left them in any doubt about the priority he would accord to such measures. Mr Muldoon said that, but for a breakdown in industrial relations and further wage rises, the economy would now be in election-winning order. “ The only thing that can beat us is “ industrial unrest if we do not deal with it firmly ”, said Mr Muldoon. The whole significance of the conference, indeed, lay in the special responsibility associated at this time with the Labour portfolio. Clearly it is in this field that Mr Marshall, must distinguish himself if, in the event of a change of party leadership, he is to receive the recognition that many people feel he has already earned for his outstanding services in the EE C. negotiations. Delegates were much less interested in Mr Marshall’s report on the E.E.C. than in his views on industrial affairs. Nevertheless, delegates and others who examine this interesting fragment of the conference will also be aware that results 'of direct wage

bargaining—and particularly the attitude of employers—are largely determined by the business climate and general economic conditions. The Minister of Finance bears much responsibility for these. ’

The question of leadership, of the party and the Parliamentary team, inevitably added an unusual piquancy to the conference. Although voting in the election of the party president was not disclosed, it is likely that the contest between Mr E. D. Holt and Mr G. A. Chapman was close. Mr Holt probably won on the strength of his candidature speech and because undecided delegates were reluctant to disturb a party machine that had succeeded in 1969, when the party’s fortunes seemed precarious. All delegates must have been encouraged by Mr Holt’s later comment that the party administration would get the “ hurry up ” that the challenge to his leadership obviously demanded.

Sir Keith Holyoake did not for one moment, appear to be a Prime Minister who was even considering retirement Nor did delegates give the slightest hint that they expected him to stand down. The caucus discussion about leadership on the eve of the conference was clearly a sound political move: it asserted the Parliamentary section’s prerogative to choose its leader, confirmed its present satisfaction with Sir Keith Holyoake’s leadership, and yet made known that the caucus intended to consider the question when it thought the time was right. The reaction of the conference must have some bearing on the eventual decision by the Parliamentarians. Unless the Prime Minister himself decides to retire, the 1971 conference has given them no reason to make a change at all.