THE PRESS SATURDAY, APRIL 7, 1979. Mr Chapman’s ‘self-reliance’

Press, 7 April 1979, Page 14

THE PRESS SATURDAY, APRIL 7, 1979. Mr Chapman’s ‘self-reliance’

Since the National Party’s president, Mr G. A. Chapman, addressed his Dominion council on the need in the Government to give greater emphasis to fundamental party principles, a good deal of speculation has been undertaken. Was Mr Chapman, in spite of his later rejection of the idea, really criticising the Prime Minister? Was he dissatisfied with the present party policy? Was he displeased with its enactment

Mr Chapman has publicly denied that he was being critical of the Government or its leader. He could hardly be critical of party policy, unless last year he reluctantly endorsed a policy, in the making of which he had an important hand.

Behind all this it is still possible that, as a person close to the governing party, but outside Parliament, Mr Chapman enjoys the luxury of facing an electorate consisting entirely of generally like-minded people. It is not necessarily easy to become the president ot his party, or easy to satisfy everyone with his performance. Having won the office, and having restated the objects of the National Party, Mr Chapman had little difficulty in confirming himself m office His decision to stand again virtually ensures him of another term as president

As a prelude to a series of party conferences round the country, the Dominion council meeting apparently accepted enthusiastically Mr Chapman s call for a fresh emphasis on basic aims. The party’s councillors have no doubt heard many associates talk of getting back to basic ideas about private enterprise, self-reliance, individual initiative and effort, and healthy competition All this sounds verv fine and it may wed be that, for the want of some of these attributes, New Zealanders are worse off todav than thev should be.

An enthusiastic endorsement of these aims could, in the higher echelons of the National Party, lead on to a quite misleading euphoria, to the dream of a bright blue Utopia on the right of the political rainbow. If the party’ cares to examine some of its own members more closely it will find they are not always asking for independence, and are not always confident of their self-reliance. In good times farmers, for example, ate happy enough to be self-reliant: in bad times they are as quick as most to mok for support from the State.

Recent decisions by the Government tend to be directed along the very course that Mr Chapman was advocating. He is likely to discover, however, that the Prime Minister is inclined to be much more moderate in his application

of party ideals than many non-political members of the party. If extreme private-enterprisers in the party imagine that it is easy to sell the idea of selfreliance and “healthy competition” they will be profoundly mistaken. If they, as farmers, manufacturers, exporters, or importers, were really ready to cast away all the protective arangements and State-financed incentives and subsidies and support schemes, the call would ring more truly. If they look to the last election result, about which the party has been so concerned, for evidence that electors were thirsting for free enterprise, they are not likely to find much.

The Social Credit vote might look to some people like a swing towards free enterprise: certainly that party’s manifesto and candidates could make Social Credit sound like a free-enterprise party. In fact, the explicit plan of the party was for the highly centralised and bureaucratic government of the economy. BaCk-to-basics enthusiasts in the Dominion council of the National Party will have to look elsewhere for signs of a popular thrust away from socialist bureaucracy. They might, to their surprise, see a hint of it in the Labour Party policy: it talked of simplifying government and of cutting away bureaucracy. Having said that, the policy gave no evidence that the Labour Party in power would do much about it.

The Prime Minister is not everyone’s favourite politician. He has never set out to be such a politician. He has made mistakes, serious mistakes; his manner has often upset people and many long-standing National Party supporters have found some of his performances unsupportable. His strength, however, is that he is frank and forthright: and most political parties have been infested with people who were a good deal less than that

For many years the Labour Party had its almost saintly, probably goodhearted gurus with a great talent for masking dogma and humbug behind a screen of public affability and concern. They were leaders of a kind, but they were not always seen in a clear light. Perhaps the present Prime Minister is not the man he appears: he is certainly not the Right-wing extremist that some would see him to be. He may have to exert a moderating influence on some of his party in the interests of practical government and effective appeal to the electorate. The Government certainly has to engineer changes in the economy, but these will not be facilitated by politically insensitive over-reactions on party principles