What happened recently at the three [unclear: s] of National Party Conference was [unclear: lly] all inevitable. There has been a [unclear: ba-] conflict between the thinking within National Party and the actions of the [unclear: tional] Government. On an "Eyewitness" [unclear: gramme] on SPTV on 29 August, Julian [unclear: it], Dominion Councillor of the Party, [unclear: pressed] the view that National had [unclear: al-ys] stood for "private enterprise" and [unclear: itiative]", but over the past three years [unclear: s] philosophy has not always been [unclear: ref-ted] in the Government's actions.

Earlier in the same programme, interviews [unclear: re] carried out in some of the homes of the [unclear: tional] Party members who brought a remit the conference which intended to "[unclear: reaf-]n" the belief in private enterprise. The [unclear: nplaint] registered in their Party's [unclear: Govern-nt] was, essentially, that the level of [unclear: pu—c] expenditure is "choking private [unclear: enter-se]" and "inhibiting New Zealand's ability function economically". They complained that we "depend entirely on the welfare state" and that we have lost our "pioneering spirit" and the ability to do things for ourselves.

Solutions to this "economic crisis" were seen to be found in less "regulation and control" of the economy and the cryptic "allocating resources based on market forces." The Government should, so these people maintained, spend less on social welfare, intervene less in all fields and cut back the size of "the bureaucracy". And the remit with all its philosophical connotations, was passed overwhelmingly.

Back to Basics

On the last day of the Christchurch conference we were treated to George Chapman waxing lyrical in a climactic speech to delegates. Chapman, the president of the Party, had first brought up this issue after ground was lost by the Party in last year's election and in the face of failing popular opinion of the Parliamentary team. And so it was logical that Chapman should cast his eye to the 1981 election.

A leader in the 'back to basics' movement within the National Party, Chapman claimed that the Party was at a "crossroads"; that it had two choices. The first was to "tiptoe timidly" into the 1980's (with the same "she'll be right" attitude prevalent in the late 1960,s) or, the Party could "go boldly", giving "purpose and direction to all New Zealanders". Naturally enough, George quite likes this second choice, and he backed it up with the exhortation to move ahead with "colours flying" and "with our flag flying on our philosophical masthead."

Well, if you have read this far, you may be be wondering what all this means. And, of course, it's not an unreasonable request. So, I will attempt to give you my interpretation.

An Economic Issue

Essentially, the conflict between the parliamentary wing and the membership of the National Party is an economic one. Quite simply, the overwhelming feeling within the rank and file is that the Government is not producing the economic policies, and results, that they desire.

New Zealand's economic system is a capitalist one. On this point I believe that few National Party members would disagree; for "capitalism" is simply another term for the system of "free enterprise". Capitalist systems can be distinguished by the presence of one group of people who own and manage industry and business, and another necessarily larger group of people who work in those businesses and industries, produce commodities and are paid wages by the first group. Again, this last point, I imagine, would not be disputed by National Party members.

However, the point at which the National Party and I would fail to continue this agreement, is the claim that a Government acting in the interests of the first group - of business — is acting in the interests of all New Zealanders, and those of the country. In fact, delegates at the conference a week ago made great use of this argument in their rhetoric. They spoke of the unity of all New Zealanders, used the word "us" to signify that we all have the same interests and that all can be equally satisfied.

Unfortunately, this is simply not true. National members see that there are two distinct social groups, yet cannot see that the interests of each are not the same. In fact, the interests of the first group (or, "bourgeoisie") are diametrically opposed to those of the second group (or, "the working class".)

In a capitalist society such as ours, workers must sell their labour power to the capitalist. Workers rely on this employment in exchange for wages and the capitalist relies on the labour power of the workers. The capitalist supplies the workplace, the worker works and the capitalist then owns and sells the product of this labour. In this exchange between worker and capitalist, the worker produces commodities which have a greater value than the wages he or she has been paid. By producing commodities of greater value than wages paid, the worker therefore gives to the capitalist the commodity of labour power, over and above that which has been paid for.

This is what happens in a capitalist society, and this is the reason that it is said that a capitalist system (or "free enterprise" system) represents, or works in, the interests of the employing group - the bourgeoisie. Logically, capitalism cannot work in the interests of the working class.

A Return to Free Enterprise

Returning to the National Party conference, the remit calls on the Government to act in favour of the free enterprise system; and, therefore, in the interests of the bourgeoisie. So, presuming that the call is heeded, what action is the Government going to take in the near future, and what does it mean for the future of New Zealand.

We must not overlook the fact that this call has come in the time of a protracted economic crisis; a time when economic forces make business much more difficult to operate profitably. In these times, the employing class, and their Governmental representatives, take great pains to protect their interests. Unfortunately for the vast majority of New Zealanders, these steps cannot be in the interests of the working class.

This, I believe, is exactly the interpretation to be placed on the calls from the National Party conference of a week ago. They are calls to the Government to step up its programme of "restructuring' the economy to increase the cuts in education, health and social welfare spending and to cut Government spending overall. This is what is meant by "allocating resources based on market forces": to cut spending to a level which will not hurt business at all. Calling on the Government to reduce regulation and control of industry means allowing the largest companies to grow, merge and create monopolies. The call is to increase competition, but the aim is really to reduce competition within business to create a more stable, but smaller, number of companies.

There is no doubt that Muldoon has been strenuous in his promotion of the interests of the ruling class - but Muldoon is also a man with an eye to the next Election. He knows that the implementation of these policies will meet the resistance of working people and others. Thus his enthusiasm to carry out these policies is tempered. And now the call has come from his own Party to, in effect, disregard opposition and press ahead under full steam.

What specific steps will be taken is not easy to say. The remit, and the discussion of it, was couched in very general terms. In fact, when the Birkenhead delegate who moved the motion was asked on television what specific Government action he wanted to see, the response was an embarrassed silence for a good ten seconds. It was followed by apologetic words to the effect of: "the present situation is bad, and I hope that the Government does something." Clearly, the Party has given the direction, now it is up to the Government to implement it.

As a final point, there was some opposition to the remit during discussion. This may seem surprising, but it arose because some delegates understand that Government spending works both ways. That is. Government money is also chanelled heavily into "private enterprise". To give but one example: Tasman Pulp and Paper in the four years from 1974 to 1977 made profits totalling 32 million dollars. Yet they paid no income tax during this period. Furthermore, 68% of the profit made during the 1977 financial year was made up of export incentives and tax credits, paid out of taxpayers' money. It's nice to know that someone other than dole-bludgers and lazy students receive Government assistance.

Stephen A'Court.