THE PRESS TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 1984. Personalities and principles

Press, 6 March 1984, Page 20

THE PRESS TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 1984. Personalities and principles

The inaugural conference of the New Zealand Party was a mixed affair of personalities and principles. Which force will be dominant when the party contests the General Election remains to be seen. The conference must be counted a success for the infant party, not least because it survived three days of formal debate and informal discussions, under the public gaze, without self-destructing. This is no mean feat for an organisation that is still attempting to determine what its principles are and how its ideals can be best expressed to the satisfaction of all shades of opinion within its membership. The conference did more to put the party’s personalities before the public than to clarify its principles and present a cohesive policy. No-one could doubt the enthusiasm of the delegates to the conference. At times, their enthusiasm and sense of mission submerged consistent argument. When, as a result, contradictory policy remits were adopted, rapid work at the top table enabled the conference to rescind the discordant remits and replace them with statements more in keeping with the tenor of conference opinion. Apart from enthusiasm, however, the only traits universally held by the delegates seemed to be disaffection with the established political. parties and antipathy for the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon. These were also the objects that led a Wellington businessman, Mr R. E. Jones, to found the party. They have been largely responsible for the 15 per cent or so support for the party that public opinion polls suggest exists in the electorate.

Enthusiasm and a shared feeling of opposition are not guarantees of unanimity. The delegates soon came face to face with the pursuit of expediency, with the attractions of what is practical over what is simply desirable, that occurs at all political party conferences. The New Zealand Party has become the rallying point and the refuge for the disenchanted; it contains within it proselytes and proponents of very divergent views. The conference showed a willingness to make room for much variety of opinion but, in doing so, has had to soften, or change, or abandon some of the policy planks with which the party was launched. The conference quickly adapted itself to side-stepping contentious or difficult issues by referring them to a policy committee that had still to be formed.

As well as having to decide upon specific questions referred to it — such as a call to abolish the family benefit — the policy committee will have to rewrite the party’s manifesto. The brochure of stated intentions that the party’s steering .committee issued as a manifesto has been withdrawn. The committee is expected to prepare a manifesto of detailed policy for the party’s next conference in September. Thi? procedure avoided the need to rescind too many contradictory remits at the conference and should mean that the eventual policy declaration is more consistent and cohesive than could have been obtained by simply assembling conference decisions on each

and every topic. The drawback for the party must be that, until September, the public will have no clear, concise, and resolute definition of the party’s intentions. Such declarations as came from the conference will not necessarily help voters determine what the New Zealand Party stands for. Neutralism in matters of national defence — if the party’s proscription of the word “national” is ignored — appears to be acceptable to most of the party’s membership, but the decision would be left to a referendum. The four Maori seats in Parliament, and the Department of Maori Affairs, would be abolished, but only on the introduction of something called “positive cultural programmes,” which seems to misjudge the role that the department fulfils. Parents would be entitled, under a New Zealand Party government, to tax deductions for all of their children’s education expenses, but whether this is a logical progression to the user-pay philosophy, and to the exemption of childless couples and single people from the cost of educating others’ children, is not clear. Tax incentives would be used to encourage health care, but medical benefits would be made obsolete by “complete” — and therefore presumably compulsory — medical insurance schemes. At times the public is left to wonder just what is policy adopted by the party and what is simply an observation by a party spokesman. In this group must come the guiding suggestions of Mr Jones, who sees in the party’s “new wave of liberalism” the legalising of all victimless crimes such as the possession of marijuana and, presumably, prostitution.

Ideals clashed with political reality when the conference attempted to settle on the party’s economic policy. Economic dissatisfaction was the principal reason for the creation of the party. The electorate could have expected resolute action on matters of taxation, import control, exchange rates, and Government intervention in the country’s commercial affairs. Definite views on these issues were expressed, but an escape route was needed to avoid division between the idealists and the pragmatists. This was provided by a carefully-worded resolution from the top table that endorsed the preferences for a free market, for minimal Government interference, and for the free enterprise philosophy, without insisting on their immediate implementation. In this, as in several other facets of its policy, the party is in a state of limbo, buoyed up by the rhetoric and the enthusiasm, but without a clearly-stated line of action.

The New Zealand Party has shown that it will be a factor in the next General Election. If it is to be more than that, more than just an unpredictable force in marginal seats, it will need to give voters a policy of detail to supplement the fine words. Welding the obvious diversity of opinion in the party into support for detailed policies is the biggest challenge facing the party.