Town and country in the National Party

Press, 18 March 1982, Page 20

Town and country in the National Party

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

Every three years, once the trauma of the General Election is over and its lessons and messages digested, the political parties go through a period of self-inspection. Because it lost, and because it tends to do these things in public, the soul searching of the Labour Party has attracted a lot of public attention, particularly over suggestions that it move away from its present trade’ union ties.

But the National Party is also undergoing self-inspection. The nature of this is. more apparent from its members of Parliament and the actions of the Government than through the party structure itself, so far, but then the National Party has a tradition of keeping its philosophical debates internal. The actions of the National. Government, and what its backbenchers are saying in the select. committees and during the course of their work, add up to a clear pointer to what is being identified in this self-inspection. Although it won the 1981 General Election, the result had some bad implications for the Government. It became, more than ever before, the party of the provinces and of the countryside. A study of the Dunedin, Christchurch and Wellington electorates over the last six years shows the trend.

After the 1975 General Election, National held one Dunedin seat (Dunedin North), three Christchurch seats (Lyttelton, Papanui and Fendalton) and five Wellington seats

(Miramar. Wellington Central. Karori, Western Hutt and Kapiti). Today it holds no Dunedin seats, one Christchurch seat (Fendalton) and one Wellington seat (Ohariu. formerly Karori). Even in Auckland, where the National electorates have held up better, the picture is hardly cheering. East Coast Bays and Hunua have been lost, and Eden and Helensville came within a hair's breadth of going too.

The result has been a big change in the sort of person representing National in Parliament. The combined populations of Wellington and Christchurch are now represented in the Government caucus by only two men. — the Minister of’ Customs. Mr Templeton, for Ohariu and a first-time M.P., Mr P. R. Burdon, for Fendaltbn. They have a big responsibility. But they are also the only two people the National Party in those cities can look towards to represent them. This also is a big responsibility, because the philosophies of those living in cities are moving — as part of a long-term trend — further away from the philosophies of those living in the provinces and the countryside.

Just how’ different those philosophies now are was shown by the reaction of different regions to the Springbok tour last year. The Springboks were welcomed outside the four main cities; there was some disagreement in those provincial and rural venues’, but most

of the opposition seemed to come from imported urban protesters. The “Battle of Athletic Park" during the Spring-bok-All Black rugby test there provided the unedifying sight of supporters (many of whom were from out of town) abusing and fighting opponents (most of whom were Wellington residents). This division in attitude between the four main cities and the provincial cities and the countryside is now being seen within’the National Party as a major factor in losing three Wellington electorates last year, and failing to regain the highly marginal Western Hutt seat. National Party strategists are wondering if this division does not represent a wider schism between urban and rural aspirations. The new Government M.P. for Selwyn Ms Ruth Richardson, a former legal officer of Federated Farmers and resident of Wellington, summed up this division in a recent interview. She said there were widesprad objections among the general (urban) public to Supplementary Minimum Prices payments to farmers. She was alarmed that farmers, who needed support because of lower market returns, were getting the support in a worsening climate of sympathy and understanding.

The four main cities not only have seats in Parliament which National needs to retain and regain; they are also the supply of most of the liberal element within the National Party caucus and the Cabinet. The

Minister of Transport, Mr Gair, the Minister of’ Justice. Mr McLay, the Minister of Internal Affairs. Mr Highet. and the Minister of Customs. Mr Templeton, are probably the four most liberal — in terms of social conscience — members of the Cabinet. Mr Burdon is emerging as a liberal backbencher over social policy. They all represent big-city electorates.

But the main impression emerging of the 1982 National Government is that of costcutting. of pruning back the social welfare system. Some are motivated to attempt this in support of the ethic of private enterprise and the user paying; others because they see a need for reform of the taxation system and the only way they can envisage that is by reducing government expenditure. Either way, they become seen as trying to dismantle the social welfare system. This view of what they are doing is fostered ardently by both Labour and Social Credit spokesman who want the reputation of the Government blackened. There are fears within the National party that this view of National’s intentions for the next three years in government may be alienating middle-of-the-road urban voters on whom National has traditionally relied for support. The rump of urban members of the National Party caucus are beginning to receive messages of alarm from theirurban party branches. Of course, this rump includes a

number of Cabinet Ministers—the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. Mr Muldoon, the Minister of Transport. Mr* Gair. the Minister of Internal Affairs. Mr Highet. the Minister of Justice. Mr McLay. the Minister of Education, Mr Wellington the Minister of Health, Mr Malcolm—all from Auckland—and the Minister of Customs. Mr Templeton. It is not as if this urban rump were without influence. But there are only three urban backbenchers in the National Party caucus—Mr D. M. J. Jones (Helensville), Mr T. de V. Hunt (Pakuranga) and Mr Burdon. Mr Burdon is the only newly-elected urban M.P.. while Mr Hunt and Mr W. R. Peters (Hunua) were the only newlv-elected urban M.P.’s in 1978.’

The fear of the urban base of the National Paty is two-fold. It fears that its voice will be drowned by the increasingly different voice of the provincial city and countryside base of the party; it fears that social conscience and the social welfare system will be lost to the free-enterprise and user-pays ethic. It fears that this will further alienate uncommitted but liberal urban voters. Because this vote seems to have already been forfeited in Dunedin, Christchurch and Wellington—temporarily at least—this places the focus on Auckland. If National had lost Eden and Helensville last November it would not now be the government, and there was only about 200 votes in it. But the movement against the National Government could be

even greater in 1984 if Auckland were to continue the swing against National shown bv Wellington in 1981. ’ The debate within the National Party is now over how to retain the liberal, urban vote, and even claw some of it back, when so much of Government policy is being shaped in a caucus the majority of whose members have other allegiances and other interests. The debate is also over how the Government can reform taxation without reducing Government ependiture in a way that damages (or at least threatens) the continuation of the social welfare system as established. In the 'last few weeks, the news has been dominated by items such as the Prime Minister's tea lady, a charge on drug prescriptions, the number of teachers available, whether superannuation payments might be cut, and others. All have drawn a predictably negative reaction from the community. But there is also pressure for reform of taxation. and in the minds of most people this means a reduction of taxation.

It is not an enviable position for the Government to be in. The urban and liberal elements of the National Party, who are not necessarily the same people, but who are becoming more identified together, fear that the predilection of a majority in the caucus will be to plump for taxation reform at the expense of social welfare. They fear the repercussions of this on National's chances of winning the 1984 election.