“LEE LETTER” DEBATE

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22705, 9 May 1939, Page 9

“LEE LETTER” DEBATE

♦ .. r “ISSUES NOW SETTLED” REPORT TO LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS ’ GENERAL SECRETARY’S COMMENTS The official report of the Labour Party conference in Wellington at Easter has been issued to “party members only.” The resolution made by conference was: “That this conference disapprove of any trade union or other journal publishing any report of the proceedings of conference other than the official report issued by the national conference.” In his summarised report of the proceedings the Hon. D. Wilson, M.L.C. (national secretary) writes: “I would suggest that what has become known as the ‘Lee’ incident should not be given any undue publication now that the questions at issue have been settled by the conference. “The letter which Mr J. A. Lee, M.P., admitted had been written by him, and which is now being so actively circulated throughout the Dominion by the National Party, was read to conference,” reports Mr Wilson. “Mr Lee stated that the letter had been sent out by him to those members of the Parliamentary Labour Party who supported the attitude he had adopted in caucus concerning the Government’s financial policy, and it had also been sent to a few personal friends whose opinion he valued. In his letter Mr Lee strongly disagreed with the financial policy pursued by the Government, and vigorously attacked the Hon. W. Nash as Minister for Finance. “The differences of opinion regarding finance were thoroughly thrashed out during the course of the debate on finance initiated by Mr Nash, in which Mr Lee and others took part, and the opinion of the conference was clearly shown when a resolution was passed with only three dissentients.” That resolution expressed confidence in Mr Nash as Minister for Finance and in the financial policy of the Government. Mr Wilson goes on to say that the question of Mr Lee’s action in sending out to his friends the letter which afterwards got into the hands of the National Party and newspaper editors was debated for nearly four hours, and eyentually Mr Lee’s action in circulating the letter was condemned in a resolution (already published) which was carried # by 285 votes to 207. “It is only fair to Mr Lee, writes Mr Wilson, “to add that he denies being responsible for the letter getting into the hands of our enemies or for the interviews and reports which have appeared in ‘Smith’s Weekly’ and other publications. No condemnation could be too severe of the action of the person or persons who were responsible for giving to our opponents a copy of Mr Lee’s letter and for divulging to the newspapers the confidential business of caucus and the party.” The Future Under the sub-heading entitled “The Future,” Mr Wilson’s report says when dealing with a resolution on the appointment of the Cabinet: “The resolutions passed by conference have definitely strengthened the hands of the Prime Minister and the national executive when dealing with difficulties that may arise in the future, and puts beyond doubt the ultimate necessity of conference itself being consulted in the event of any future difference of opinion arising which cannot be resolved by the ordinary means of procedure.” According to Mr Wilson, the “Lee incident might now be considered definitely closed, “and it only remains for all members of the party, irrespective of whatever position they may occupy, to give loyal adherence to foe decisions of conference and to continue to present an absolutely united front to the enemies of Labour.” The disclosure of conference business is discussed in both the official report and in Mr Wilson's summary. The vote of censure on Mr W J. Lyon, M.P., by 337 votes to 157, for “holding a meeting in another place at which conference business was dissussed and the confidential business of the Parliamentary Party caucus was discussed,” is described by Mr Wilson as “another resolution which deserves attention.” . ... The official report discloses that a motion to suspend Mr Lyon for the remainder of the conference was defeated on a show of hands. Reports in “The Press” Reporting the fifth session of the conference, the printed document issued by party members says: “The chairman, Mr James Roberts, read a summary of an article appearing in that day s Christchurch Press.’ in which was divulged the business conducted at yesterday’s conference, and expressed disappointment and abhorrence of the action of some person in divulging confidential conference proceedings. The chairman also stated that he had been informed on reliable authority that a meeting of some of the delegates had been organised in another room, and called on Mr F. W. Gould ' (Mosston branch) to explain what had happened. , . . “Mr Gould stated that he had inadvertently entered a room in the Town Hall in which was being held a meeting addressed by Mr W. «. Lyon, M.P., and he had protested against such a meeting being held. “Mr Lyon, in reply, stated that he had been asked to read the contents of a letter issued by Mr J. A. Lee, M.P., and to explain the reasons behind the dispute in caucus, and had agreed to do so.” In outlining the motions and the speakers in the “Lee” debate, the report says it was unanimouslv decided to regard as strictly confidential the business that had been conducted.