Our own primary objective as a political party for the next three years is very simple. We did not join ACT to create a political party like New Zealand First, willing, without regard for fact, to run any fickle line capable of grabbing short-term votes or short-term attention. We are not here for the fun of it, or for personal advancement. On the one hand, we need votes to achieve our objectives. On the other hand, the sort of popularity Winston gets by focusing on a few hot buttons will never do what we want. We built this party to do a much more serious job than that, for the benefit of New Zealand.

The 1999 election has delivered a major opportunity to ACT, but more importantly by far, it has imposed on us a huge responsibility. The Nats are wobbling all over the place. We are now, since the election, the people with the responsibility for keeping a progressive liberal vision alive and well in the hearts and minds of New Zealanders. Nothing is more important to the long-run economic and social advancement of this country in the 21st century. No other avenue offers comparable gains of income and living standard at every level of society.

In the service of that mission, we need to transform ACT New Zealand, by the 2002 election, from a minor party with 9 Parliamentary seats into a major player with a critical role in policy formation. That will require a substantial increase in the number of seats ACT holds in Parliament. We have, therefore, two major areas of party priority-policy and strategy, on the one hand, and on the other, organisation, funding, membership and communications. The rest of this paper looks at the nitty-gritty in some of those areas.

I see the role of this party in educating New Zealand about what works, and what will never work, in economic and social policy, as critical to the future of this country. Let's not kid ourselves. By and large, policies that look easy in the short term fail very fundamentally over time to deliver sustained benefit to all New Zealanders. 1n sorting policy priorities, you have to be very tough-minded if you want at the end of the day to deliver. And we need to be very tough-minded in getting our ACT priorities right.

We have two broad jobs to do. One of them is straight basic education about the principles and policies that deliver ever-increasing progress over time to all New Zealanders, as distinct from those which look good, but in fact over time, destroy the potential for gain. I want briefly to set out some of the basics, for the benefit of our members and the public. Alongside that, there are four or five areas of specific focus, where ACT has developed advanced thinking about health, education, income, disadvantage and retirement incomes. These ideas have the power to change the future in dramatically beneficial ways and in quite a short period, for all New Zealanders.

At this stage, some of those ideas are not widely understood in the community. They are capable of misrepresentation by unscrupulous opponents. But if we lose our focus on these fundamentals, ACT will not be doing its job for New Zealand, and the voting public will know it. Our ideas on the Treaty, crime and welfare are sound. They are important. But they will work only in the context of the rest of our economic and social thinking. If we fail to present that more fundamental context adequately, we won't win the reward.

Before I get into the detail, there are however, one or two preliminary comments I need to make about the style of the operation we need, if we want ACT to accomplish the specific objectives we set, in combining to establish this party. I have made some hard comments about other parties. But we should aim to be equally tough on ourselves.

Clearly, there is a need for ACT to present its case in the market with flair, with drama, and a high level of creativity. Our policies are fundamental to the economic and social advancement of every voter in the 21st century. They are relevant, in particular, to disadvantaged New Zealanders who have grown up, for whatever reason, deficient in the skills required by a modern job market. We need clear and forceful communications.

There is however, one over-riding requirement without which ACT New Zealand will never accomplish anything of value, for itself, its members or anyone else. That requirement is credibility. Credibility in the family home of the average New Zealander, credibility in the eyes of the underprivileged, and at the same time, credibility with the best informed and best educated economic and social analysts in this country.

ACT was formed because we could see that, without further policy change, some disastrous outcomes could be expected by the year 2000. As we all know, adequate changes were not made. Now, in the year 2000, the outcome is all round us, across the board, in everything from our falling trade balance to our rising crime rate. That consideration imposes some fundamental constraints on all of us.

Voters in New Zealand value political parties for the contribution they seem likely to make to the perceived well-being of society in the longer run. They want to see the problems of the nation come first. The fastest way to political suicide is to come across as a party whose members put personal ambition ahead of the common good and, for personal advancement, destroy the ability of their team to serve the national interest.

Secondly, as our own research shows, close to two-thirds of New Zealand voters demand that parties should stand by their principles, even when that costs votes. Less than one-third think parties should compromise on important policies to maintain widespread support. If we permit ACT at any time to slip into ad hoc rather than principled criticism, we are going to find even where the voting public agrees with our point that the benefit will be reaped, not by ACT but by our opponents. People see the ad hoc approach as motivated by personal or party gain, instead of a contribution to public good.

If this party behaves like Winston Peters, nobody is going to adopt our principles, because we won't be seen as having any-and ACT, under those conditions, will not survive. Use flash-in-the-pan tactics on public issues, and a flash in the pan is all we're going to be. We need to understand the nature of the situation facing us, and the responsibility it will impose on ACT, more than any other party, in the next three years.

There is no future for ACT in skidding on the fundamental goals and principles of this party. They embody what is valuable in ACT to the rest of the community.