Unity theme at National conference

Press, 2 August 1983, Page 18

Unity theme at National conference

By

Unity and a quiet, cautious feeling of confidence was the predominant feeling at the National Party conference in Dunedin over the week-end. This year’s conference was a marked contrast to the tensionridden conference held in Hamilton last year, shortly after the member of Parliament for Rangiora, Mr Derek Quigley, resigned from the Cabinet. Last year, the Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon, received a noticeably cool reception from delegates. This year, however, the tone was set right from the start when the party president, Mrs Sue Wood, praised the party’s leader and made a strong call for unity. “Our leader shares my optimism,” she said. “On him we place the responsibility, on him we shower the criticism, in him we place our trust. But a leader does not stand on his or her own. A leader requires your energy, your ideas and initiatives ... A leader must above all have strength and confidence and experience. Our leader has all three.” In her comments, Mrs Wood appeared to crystallise the feeling the party has towards its leader. Some party members do not like him, but they accept that he is the only leader who can lead them to a victory in the 1984 election. Little criticism of Mr Muldoon surfaced during the conference. One of the few occasions was when

KARREN BEANLAND

the dominion chairman of Young Nationals, Mr Stuart Boag, warned against “one-man-bandism” in his annual report. The conference started on Friday afternoon in a fairly subdued mood. The spirit did not start to pick up until Mr Muldoon gave his leader’s address in the evening. Mr Muldoon made a strong defence of last week’s Budget and Hie ?3.2 billion deficit. Although many National Party delegates were worried about the size of the deficit — and Mr Muldoon himself admitted that it was “not good” — they appeared to accept his assurances without question. There was no debate on the conference floor about the Government’s handling of the economy. Delegates who might have been more vocal about their concerns were appeased by the Budget, which included a number of measures that the party had been asking for, and the recent drop in inflation and interest rates, which showed that the Government’s measures had been successful. Mr Quigley highlighted the lack of spark at the conference when he said in an interview on Sunday that he was dissappointed in delegates for not concentrating as much as they should on the longer-term issues facing the economy. He said delegates accepted the Budget as a good explanation of the current state of the ANew Zealand economy, but a

document which did not tell much about what would happen in the future. “Many people, particularly in business, are looking for some long term indications because they themselves have to invest for the future,” he said. Leadership was not an issue at the conference and delegates showed a surprising lack of interest in who is likely to follow the deputy leader, Mr Duncan MacIntyre, should he decide, as is expected, to stand down at the end of this Parliamentary term. This may have been largely because Mr Maclntyre was not at the conference, as he was attending another conference overseas. It was clear, however, the candidates in the deputy leadership race were “on trial” in discussion sessions on the theme of building New Zealand. These sessions, where Cabinet Ministers spoke and answered questions from the floor, were a new feature in this year’s conference. The two main contenders for the deputy’s job at the moment are the Minister of Labour, Mr Bolger, and the Minister of Justice, Mr McLay. Mr Bolger had a high profile early in the conference when he spoke about voluntary unionism — a subject close to the hearts of all delegates. His aggressive approach earned him a warm response from the conference. Mr McLay came back in fine A style on the last day of the z .

conference, when he gave a suave and witty address on party philosophy. He was interrupted several times with bursts of applause and received a standing ovation at the end of his speech — the only Cabinet minister at the conference to gain such support. He benefited from being on stage with the Minister of Energy, Mr Bill Birch, another possible contender for the post of deputy, who gave a sound but staid address on the Government’s economic achievements and aims. Mr McLay clearly came out of the conference with strong party support — one of the late remits that was put forward was a barely concealed way of highlighting the work he has done on changing the rape laws — but it is caucus votes he will have to win to succeed. Sources high up in the party hierachy expect the deputy leadership decision to be made late this year. Trade unions, law and order, and the nuclear issue were the big subjects of debate at the conference. The member of Parliament for Waipa, Miss Marilyn Waring, raised the nuclear issue in her speech to Young Nationals on Saturday morning. She created ripples among the Parliamentarians when she suggested in an impressively argued and well-researched address that the Government had not done as , much as it could on the issue of

visits from vessels equipped with nuclear arms and that she would vote for Social Credit’s bill banning such visits if the Government did not allow it to be referred to a select committee. The member of Parliament for Marlborough, Mr Doug Kidd, told a discussion panel the same afternoon that the Government needed to look again at its nuclear policy. He argued that although it was difficult to get a nuclear-weapon-free-zone in the South Pacific, that was no excuse for doing nothing. Mr Muldoon, who commented that it was surprising that the nuclear issue had caused so much debate at the conference, reiterated the Government’s policy in his final address yesterday. He emphasised the importance of the A.N.Z.U.S. treaty, but made no mention of Miss Waring or her misgivings over the visits of nuclear vessels. Nearly all of the discussion on the nuclear issue took place off the full conference floor. Young Nationals drafted a late remit which would have brought the issue on to the conference floor, but a slip-up in their organisation prevented it being debated. The nuclear issue had the same fate as several other subjects which might have provoked more exciting discussion — delegates appeared to put them to one side for the time being so they could enjou' a relaxed and unified atmosphefk