‘Back-to-basics’ in the National Party

Press, 9 April 1979, Page 20

‘Back-to-basics’ in the National Party

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

The National Party is hot locked in a clash of personalities. It has already advanced some way in reshaping its basic principles to meet the stresses of modern international life.

This is apparent after the two-day meeting of the Dominion council of the party last week. Significantly, when indicating his acceptance of renomination, the president (Mr George A. Chapman) made it clear that this would be for 12 months only — which is no more than fact. The office of president is a year-to-year appointment. But afterwards Mr Chapman admitted that the principal factor in persuading him to carry on, apart from the enormous support he had received since his announcement that he was considering his future, was his belief that the next 12 months would be the most important in the party’s history. In a short speech opening the council meeting he said that he regarded it as the most important meeting he had chaired during his sixyear term as president. He emphasised the traumatic effect of Labour’s nearvictory last November, and identified as the main reasons the state of the economy and the National Government’s performance in industrial relations. The speech, and particularly its essence, was interpreted in different ways by competing news media. Some emphasis was given to a possible personality clash between Mr Chapman and the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon). What seems to have been

lost, however, is that Mr Chapman’s reversion to basic principles, with its emphasis on the encouragement of private enterprise, individual ownership and individual effort, has already been some years under way. As part of a plan strongly backed by Mr Chapman in 1971, younger but keen and experienced party members were encouraged to come forward as candidates. These included Mr D. F. Quigley (now Minister of Housing), Mr J. K. McLay (now Attorney-General and Minister of Justice), Mr W. E. Cooper (now Minister of Tourism), Mr D, L. Kidd (who replaced Mr E. G. Latter as member for Marlborough, and who will move the address-in-repiy on May 22), and Mr B. E. Brill (whose place in Cabinet would have been assured had it not been for the indecisive early election results relating to the Kapiti seat). These experienced, though younger members are well placed to carry forward the basic National Party principles. In the Government caucus meetings since the General Election they have been strongly supported by back-benchers whose views are similar. So it is simplistic to assume that Mr Chapman yearns for a permanent seat in the Government caucus. His views are well enough represented there, in that they are also linked with basic National Party thinking — and seeing that his presidential job is an unpaid one, he could scarcely spare the time for a weekly attendance.

Does he want payment?

The answer is emphatically “no.” The same also applies to a knighthood, which, according to one journalist, would bring the directorates flooding in. He believes that the National Party presidency should be unpaid, and should carry no “perks of office.” What, then, does he want of the political wing? The differences in viewpoint between Mr Chapman and Mr Muldoon were indicated in “The Press” on March 3 and March 12. In an interview with Mr Muldoon, I quoted him as saying that, generally speaking, the political and organisational sections of the National Party were kept well apart. He added: “We have the National Party president up once a year, for perhaps half an hour, to tell us what is going to happen at the party’s annual conference — but he does not take part in any discussions. Actually he does not attend while we are having any discussions.” Mr Muldoon explained that this system did not arise with hirn. It was one of the inbuilt principles of the National Party that there should be no party influence at caucus level. Mr Chapman admits the existence of this practice, but believes that it comes from the differing atmosphere of the 1950 s and 19605. “I believe that the circumstances of the early 1970 s made these procedures and attitudes totally outdated,” Mr Chapman told me.

He would like sufficient access to Government caucus meetings to be able to attend when specific matters affecting National Party policy are being discussed. these attendances would not be regular, and could be quite rare. He is sure there is provision for them in the party rules. As part of his existing term, Mr Chapman is preparing to attend the five party regional conferences in May. The party’s annual conference will be held in the Christchurch Town Hall from July 27 to July 30. Between now and then he will be taking into the field the mini-manifesto which he enunciated last Tuesday. Some of the points on this document are already wellknown. To some they have a marked similarity to those spelled out by Sir John Marshall on election night, when Sir John was the first to say that National’s disappointing showing was due to an abandonment of basic National Party principles. It is presumed that Mr Muldoon did not see Mr Chapman’s speech document, though he was at the meeting to hear the speech itself. Mr Chapman has made no criticism of Mr Muldoon’s stewardship, but last week there was no joint appearance to the news media as on a previous occasion.

At present, membership of the Government caucus carries a qualification “by election only.” Exceptions

have been made, as Mr H. C. Templeton was admitted on a working basis after his defeat in 1972. The caucus rules, it seems, are very much what the caucus

leader chooses to make them. However, the real principles of the National Party are undergoing a thorough refurbishing at regional level now. The result will be demonstrated in the remits which will pass from branches to regions, and so to the national conference, and in the manifesto which will result.

Comment from the Capital