THE PRESS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1986. Labour Party conference

Press, 2 September 1986, Page 20

THE PRESS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1986. Labour Party conference

The 1986 Labour Party conference may well be remembered for three discoveries. The Left-wing of the party to a certain extent discovered itself. More definitely, it discovered economics. And the party as a whole discovered what it was like to be the party of government. The discoveries will not necessarily make for a united party. They will mean a difference in the political landscape.

A grouping of Left-wing delegates and members of Parliament has occurred before. Last year, a meeting of this grouping lost sight of its agenda when the Prime Minister, Mr Lange, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Palmer, gate-crashed the meeting. This year the grouping has been graced with a name, the Broad Left. The development of a faction within the Labour Party is being watched by the party president, Ms Margaret Wilson, with great care. The Broad Left claimed a number of victories at the conference, although the extent to which it was responsible for the outcome of the votes, rather than that the results happened to coincide with what the Broad Left wanted, is far from clear.

The Labour Party has always been a coalition of groups. Sometimes Labour Party politicians have said that there is no Left of the Labour Party. They were deluding themselves. What appears to have happened is that a coalition has formed under the Broad Left banner within the Labour Party. It would seem improbable, at this point, for the Broad Left to be anything but a loose grouping. Ms Wilson would have much more to worry about if the Broad Left became a tightly disciplined group. The example of the Australian Labour Party with its factions, and of the British Labour Party, is enough to make any member of the New Zealand Labour Party tremble.

However, because the Broad Left leaders considered that the grouping had some victories, it is unlikely that it will disappear after the conference. Within the Parliamentary caucus it will be difficult for the Broad Left to be particularly influential. The tight party discipline of the New Zealand Parliament will not make allowances for many Government critics from within the party of government.

The Labour Left has traditionally taken a great interest in foreign affairs. This year, the usual conference votes in support of Nicaragua, the debates about representation for the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and about the South-West Africa People’s Organisation were there. That hardy annual — withdrawal from alliances with a nuclear Power — got its usual hearty backing. But what the Left-wing was angry about was economics. There was opposition to the reorganisation of the State sector, to the deregulation of the banking sector, the floating of the dollar and, especially, major changes to the structure of unions.

The debates showed up cracks in several ways. There was division between political and industrial Labour. There was a class division — evidence that some people from unions, were uncomfortable with the decidedly middle-class background and approach of most members of the Government and many of the other delegates. There was the traditional tension between the party organisation and the Parliamentary party. The picture was complicated by the emergence within the union leadership of a number of university graduates. University education does not necessarily put a person

into a middle-class slot, but it gives a certain approach to subjects which is sometimes enough to create suspicions among some sections of the union movement.

In spite of some stern, sometimes trenchant, criticism of the Government’s economic policies, the Labour Party held together. One reason for this may have been that Mr Palmer was able to assure the delegates that the Government already had its legislation books full. Obviously, the delegates were relieved that the Government had nothing fresh in mind for a while. In economic policy the Government has been accused of moving too quickly for the country. As has been observed by others, the Government has been moving too quickly for itself and for the Labour Party organisation. It is just as well, for confidence within the country, that the Government managed to emerge from the party conference without having to do a U-turn in its economic policy. The Government has been accused of many things, but not of inconsistency; and if there is a new business era ahead it will be founded on the new economic environment which may be disliked, but which is known. Doubtless it was partly a realisation of this which led the delegates to show some reserve about completely overturning Government policies.

In the 1984 conference, held a few weeks after Labour attained office, and in the 1985 conference, there was still something of the attitude that is to be found in parties in opposition. In the 1986 conference, the sobering effect of power was evident. Even in foreign policy there were some moderating moves; in economic policy there was indecision. "The jury is out,” Mr Jim Anderton, member of Parliament for Sydenham, the main organiser for the Broad Left meeting, said in an interview. It was a reasonable summary.

The Labour Party approaches the election year, hardly united but not openly split. It probably need not fear that traditional Labour supporters will vote for the National Party. What it has good cause to fear is that alienated Labour supporters will not vote at all. Labour could lose by default.

Both main parties depend on the enthusiasm of party workers. The National Party lost much of its voluntary support in the last election because of the disillusionment felt about the policies of Sir Robert Muldoon. Oddly enough, Labour might gain greater financial support than it has in the past because many within the business world will want to see Labour continue in power. It is still difficult to believe that financial strength will be a substitute for party work and loyalty. The Government will need some more enthusiasm at the grass roots if it is to retain power.

Impatience with or carelessness about, even contempt for, older Labour beliefs have marked this Government. Sometimes the Government is said to have occupied the middle ground in New Zealand politics. It certainly has grasped something of the confident, affluent, new New Zealander. In its welfare policies it has shown concern for the poorest. Many New Zealanders are neither rich nor poor, but have middle class aspirations and hang on to them precariously. If anything may be spoken of as middle New Zealand it is such people. The Labour Government is somewhat shaky on defining that group. The conference did not address the question. Next year’s election might do so. •