COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE PREPARING FOR ROAD BACK

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34149, 10 May 1976, Page 14

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE PREPARING FOR ROAD BACK

(By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY)

When delegates to the sixtieth annual conference of the New Zealand Labour Party meet in Wellington’s Town Hall on Monday evening, they will find themselves and their party in a position oddly similar to that of the National Party at the conference in the new Christchurch Town Hall three years ago.

The Labour Party has just suffered a political defeat even greater than that borne by National in the November, 1972 General Election. The causes of that defeat have not been clearly established and perhaps never will be, but the proportional representation in the House of Representatives has been almost exactly reversed. The atmosphere of the Christchurch gathering was one of considerable gloom. When the National political leader (Sir John Marshall) rose and said that National could win in 1975 there was applause, but I do not believe many of those present saw this as more than an expression of determination to fight on. The action came from that conference, and must have reached its Organisational peak within the next year. National proceeded to iron out whatever internal differences there were, and at the next conference in Auckland in 1974 there was a new

leader, a new attitude, and a new (and to some frightening) concentration on the main objectives. To draw too close an analogy between National and Labour would be misleading. The parties are quite different in composition, in method, and in allegiances. Both are broadly-based parties, a phase much used at National’s Auckland conference. National members still claim this wide-based solidarity, though it could be argued that the drive and force engendered in the last two years have narrowed the party front. Some long-term Labour members, on the other hand, place the blame for Labour’s defeat on the widening of its views and objectives. Solidarity will be the keynote of the 60th Labour conference. It is fair to predict that differences between party groups will be minimised, main beliefs and policies emphasised. Party leaders will call for unity, and will endeavour to push on, with some restructuring.

It is in the election of leaders that the main work will be done. The 136 remits prepared for discussion show little evidence of heresy hunting, and as usual there are too many of them, and too many divisions within each question, for adequate discussions in the three days available.

President’s post The position of president, now held by Sir Charles Bennett, will be tip for decision after his annouhced intention to retire. There nave even been suggestions within the party that his withdrawal was forced because of the need for more positive leadership. There are four candidates: Mr A. J. Faulkner, former Minister of Labour, Mr E. Isbey, member of Parliament and former Parliamentary Under-secretary for Labour, Transport, Railways and Civil Aviation; Mr J. G. O’Brien, member of Parliament; and Mr W. E. Woods, of Rakaia.

Mr Woods, a poultryfarmer, who is chairman of the Rakaia Labour Electoral Committee, has been largely ignored as a prospect as he will be insufficiently known to delegates outside his area. (An application to Labour Party headquarters in Wellington last Thursday produced no additional details of this candidate.)- • Mr Faulkner is regarded as "traditional Labour,” with considerable backing from the trade union movement. Mr O’Brien has had much union backing, and is also senior vice-president of the party. He is regarded in addition as chief spokesman for the “Kirkite” group.

This group professes to follow the policies of the late Norman Kirk. Members of it were outspoken shortly after the election on the alleged damage done to Labour’s chances by the academics; socialist theoreticians, and “trendies” who have joined the party over the last few years. The fourth contender, Mr Isbey, will certainly have a vote-splitting effect among the industrial delegates. He is a former vice-president of the party, a former president of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Fede ration,

and former vice-president ef the Auckland Trades Council. This election will produce a confrontation between the various factions within the party. Mr Faulkner must be rated as most likely to succeed. with Mr Isbey a strong challenger, but vote-splitting could let Mr O'Brien through. Whatever happens, it is likely that the already lean Labour Opposition (32 members) in Parliament could be further embarrassed by the possession of two leaders. The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr W. E. Rowling) was not a candidate for the presidency, therefore, when the Labour caucus meets again it may have two leaders, one its elected Leader of the Opposition, the other the Labour partv president. It would be to ask too much of human nature to suggest that both would be tolerated automatically. Conjecture must start here, but in a party fighting for political life, the apparently more efficient solution could well be favoured.

This could see the dropping of Mr Rowling as Leader of the Opposition, and th“ acceptance of the new Labour Party president as political leader also. Quite a few- people in political circles have seen it this way. One had tipped Arthur Faulkner for the “double” — Labour Party President this week, and Leader of the Opposition in the days ahead. After this, the conference business may be almost humdrum. It consists of the election of senior and junior vice-presidents (from eight candidates), five executive members (from 58 nominees), two women’s representtatives (from 21 applicants), one youth representative (from 10 names), one Maori and one Polynesian delegate (from 12 names put forward), five policy committee representatives (from 65 nominees), and 14 regional representatives (from 48). Did I say humdrum? It may well be that when voting is completed the Labour Party will have a stronglyoriented executive and pol-icy-making cadre, which could change the shape of Labour more than any lengthy conference debate could do