COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL LABOUR’S NEXT CONFERENCE MIGHT HAVE A NEW PATTERN

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33538, 20 May 1974, Page 12

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL LABOUR’S NEXT CONFERENCE MIGHT HAVE A NEW PATTERN

By CEDRIC MEXTIPLA)) \ WELLINGTON.—A glimpse of a new kind of Labour Party conleren<c [ showed at times through the greyish clouds which tended to obscure t , I fifty-eighth annual gathering held on four heavil,v-committed da.v - la< week. The new conference, which could also provide a bluepriii' fiq > National Party conferences, would provide for much more pre-confcrence [ work, better pruning and consolidation of remits, more detailed dis< l ■ -; I by the lull conference of those remaining, and much more opportunit foi special groups—women, youth, Maori- to state their case* to a I'ul attendance of delegates.

Just as the old forms of Parliament, with their roots in the 18th Century, are proving inadequate, so are the accepted patterns of the annual conference.

It is no longer true, as has been happily acknow-, ledged by speakers at both major gatherings, that the [annual conference is basically a place where the out-iof-town Labour (or National) buff has his or her chance Ito mingle and rub shoul-l Iders with the mighty of the' movement. I have a feeling that delegates who sat, I through the four days of 1 this years Labour confer-; 'ence will not be happy! ’merely to dwell on memofries of the sayings by Great i I Men and the decisions of the I Executive. : Labour as a movement can be happy about this, but may also be a little apprehensive. The writing was chalked firmly on the wall during the long debate over the new party rules and constitution, asked for by last year’s conference and well presented by the special committee.

Discussion on this closelytyped 19-page document “ran over time.” Why not? Its contents were and are the nuts and bolts of political Labour organisation in New Zealand. It deserved a separate conference to itself. Certainly there was no real profit in setting it early on the agenda, with the certainty that time spent, in its discussion would be time lost to other subjects. Age barrier?

Many delegates and others have been left wondering whether the conference really intended to remove the age-barrier on Parliam e n t a r y representation. There were reasons for fixing a barrier at the age of 70, but these reasons were clearer a decade ago than they are today, particularly to the younger regional delegates. A hasty move by the Minister of Justice (Dr Finlay) was responsible for the 70-' year ban being restored, but to achieve his purpose Dr Finlay was strained to tell the conference that this was the view of Mr Kirk. Had this ndt been done a sitting member in a “safe” Labour electorate could have stayed until he (or she) died. The argument that the electoral committee has freedom of choice is not valid. A self-centred sitting member can still demand preferment for another term up to the age of 70 or can make sure of it by threatening to divide the vote by standing as “Independent Labour.” Arguments against the inflexible retirement age rule are quite valid, in that there is no time yardstick on mental capacity. The cold fact is that in the hard world of business the age of G 5 is becoming universally accepted as the age of retirement. Against that background a Parliamentary retirement age of 70 carries more logic than it did a decade ago, and the adoption of the 65-year deadline for Parliamentarians might be justified. Those who heard the debate on this subject will be left wondering whether the vote which swept away the barriers was not the result of clever engineering by Mr N. V. Douglas (Auckland Central), who is 64, and whose candidature for next

(year's election is .italic 'affected. " Certainh it is established I that many of the delegates I who voted against the proposal to limn the age ol suiting members to 65 did not .realise that by doing >o they ‘also removed the over-70 ban. Though it may be said . tat the electorate committees [had their way here, with u.eii remarks as “if you're able to vote, you are entitled to [stand for Parliament." it is 'also a fact that the conference accepted the remit .hat ja Parliamentary candidate (from “outside” must be '.ess I than 60 years of age. i Group's protest I This and other anomalies in the conference agenda produced simply by lack of time, emphasise the need fcr consideration of another system. Surely the women's and youth groups, when told that there was no time for their views to go before the conference, had some reason for complaint. The wisdom of placarding their own conference in protest can be worked out at 'party level, but.their action .did give some ammunition to ’their opponents. These two [groups did have independent [meetings on the Sunday beI fore the conference, to which news media were invited. The i resulting publicity on views [ on the abortion question may [have provided some reason for official reluctance to give them another platform. The best argument of all for conference reform relates to the time given for the discussion of 215 remits, most of which were portmanteau versions embodying other remits. In regular conference procedure, these were parcelled out to 15 committees, which had one afternoon allocated to their discussion, followed by two afternoons and one night allowed for their presentation, and then a continuation throughout the last day of the conference, last Thursday. These remits are important, but surely more work 'can be done on them before

conference sits It is a <onference necessity for then m be elections for office plus . addresses b\ the president the Parliamentary’ leaders and others, the preseir.it of annual reports, and even speeches by the president and secretary of the I-d'-:., tion of Labour Some remits beat the marks of having been u i ceived a long time ago. Many ,il understand, tend to be out dated before the conference convenes, and this is espeii ally likely to be so when the party's members occups the Treasury benches. Relevant and important ip mits could be reduced to ! something between a dozen and a score, and only these should be accorded the dignity of full conlerenn ! discussion. The parade of some of the others is an exercise in fatuity, and I make no party division in this. 1 made a similar com Iment after the National Partv conference in Christchurch last year. : The remits contain the ; heart of any party. Adequate and logical discussion is the I means bv which a remit may [be assured of party action. Whether or not this is being made possible constitutes the watershed between the oldstyle political conference and the new. Possibly unwittingly, the [president of the Federation |of Labour (Mr T. E. Skinner) emphasised this when he made his attack on the 1N.Z.8.C. "Nationwide" proI gramme on Wednesday after- ; noon. Mr Skinner did not like ■ the way the “Nationwide” : team made fun of some of i the remits. But some of the remits i were ludicrous, some were ■ poorly stated, and some (in- , eluding a few of those i passed by the conference) , I were examples of dialectic ;| shorthand, imperfectly under■j stood by a proportion of the i delegates.

If the flashes visible at the conference develop into a full dawn of party togetherness. remits must be translated into a language clearly audible on Parliament Hill.