Members Attacked In Age Debate

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31056, 11 May 1966, Page 1

Members Attacked In Age Debate

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, May 10. Before the Labour Party conference today authorised the party’s national executive to recommend a retiring age for Labour members of Parliament, several delegates had made outspoken attacks on two senior Labour members, Mr H. G. R. Mason and Sir Walter Nash.

The executive will make its recommendations to the next annual conference which will consider constitutional matters.

A dozen speakers had given their views on the retirement of Parliamentarians, several evoking loud applause for their advocacy of a retiring age, before the president (Mr N. E. Kirk) rebuked delegates for introducing personalities into the debate.

Referring to the retirement from nomination of Mr Mason, Mr Kirk said: “What appeared in the newspapers did not appear because of any decision of the national executive It appeared because somewhere, somehow, people preferred to talk to the newspapers about personal and private business. If anyone thought that would help anyone or anything they were mistaken.”

The only course open to the national executive was to seek the agreement of the conference for authority to make a recommendation. Previous conferences had turned down a number of remits. “You would be the first to complain if the national executive ruled in conflict with conference decisions,” he said. There had been talk about

the party image, said Mr Kirk. “There is nothing more painful than bumping your head on a projecting image. Let us be wary about images,” he said. Dr. Sutch’s Age Mr O. J. Gavigan (Timaru L.R.C.) opened the debate on the executive’s report which sought authorisation for making a retirement recommendation. “If it is good enough for Dr. Sutch to retire as Secretary of Industries and Commerce at 57 it is good enough for members of Parliament to retire at 65,” he said. Mr E. L. Tregoweth (Titahi Bay branch) said: “I congratulate head office in doing what it had to do to one of our members of Parliament who had done a good job. One gentleman is overseas. He has done a wonderful job. He is a friend of mine, but I think that at his age he should be ready to sit back and be an annual visitor to this conference.

“A friend told me that if he does not stand we will lose Hutt I told him that we will lose the Government if he does. It is time the Labour Party recognised that “I would like an illuminated address presented to him thanking him for his past ser-vices—-otherwise he will be there to 90.” (Applause).

■ Mr H. C. Werry (Lower Hutt

L.R.C.): I am sorry that has been said. “First this conference must decide whether it wants to win the Hutt seat this election or take a chance and lose it next election,” he said. “I say we can win the Hutt seat with Walter Nash as candidate. “I believe we have had 50 years to do something about the age limit. I think it is a good idea, but we should not be precipitate . . . We should not do it now in a moment of panic.” Mr T. A. de Cleene (Palmerston North) said that many professional men did not reach a peak until they were 65. If men like Mr Mason and Sir Walter Nash were getting on they should perhaps voluntarily retire, “but we should not make them the victims of euthanasia.” Mr L. A. Beckett (Quay street branch): If a person has served the party he should be thanked and congratulated: but if he is likely to be detrimental to the party he should go. . . . Parliamentarians are the glamour boys. It is the workers who are the backbone of the party. Ageing Men Ageing men should be told bluntly to get out. said Mr A. B. Grant, woikers’ representative on the Arbitration Court. “We must not let the country remain in the hands of ageing gentlemen. It is deplorable that one old gentleman should argue publicly with the party over candidacy. The party must come first,” Mr Grant said. Mr B. S. Gustafson (Taupo branch) said he opposed the age limit but the party could not carry passengers who threw far too much work on active members. , “We have been to a certain extent led up the garden path by the press,” said Mr F. C. Gibbs L.R.C.). “The original complaint came up because Mr Mason noint blank refused to live in the district. If a district is worth representing it is worth living in,” he said.

“1 should not like to see Mr Mason out of Parliament. . . . I had to tel] him to go. 1 was secretary. I did not like it.” Mention Deplored Mr Kirk deplored the mention of personalities. Local people must always be entitled to exercise preference for a candidate, he said. “But it must be remembered that the New Zealand Labour Party when it contests an election it is a national body. We must resolve this conflict. “If we adopt what is in the executive repoU there is opportunity carefully to weigh and draft a decision and remove any possibility of what has occurred recurring," Mr Kirk said.