NO NATIONAL CABINET

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2526, 29 July 1915, Page 6

NO NATIONAL CABINET

ALL OFFERS REJECTED

DETAILING THE NEGOTIATIONS

STATEMENT OF REASONS

OPPOSITION'S SWEEPING DEMANDS

The proposal to form a National Cabinet, made by the I'rimo Minister in tlio House shortly after the meeting of Parliament, was finally Tejcctcd b.y tlio Opposition yesterday after four weeks of negotiations. -Many caucus meetings have been held by both parties, tlio jast- of tliem yesterday. In t'lio morning Sir Joseph AVard's supporters held their meeting rejecting the offer, and a short meeting of the Government Party, was hold at the dinner adjournment of the House. Afterwards a publio announcement of the conclusion of the negotiations was made by the Prime Minister and Sir Joseph Ward. The announcement was made by both leaders handing to Press representatives for publication the text of certain correspondence,' tlio letter from the Prime Minister making Ms last offer of five Opposition members in a Cabinet of cloven, Sir Joseph Ward's reply to that offer, and Mr. Massey's reply to that. Ths Last Offer. The Prime Minister made his last offer to Sir Joseph Ward in the following tetter, dated July 27:— "Referring to our conversation of yesterday and to the proposal to form a National Government to carry on the business of the country until the termination of tlio war, I have decided oil behalf of the. Government Party to submit tlio following proposals for your consideration:— "1. The proportion from eacli side of tlio Houso in the National Ministry to be as follows: From the Government side, six members, including tlio member of tlio Executive representing tlio Nativo race who will hold Cabinet rank. From the Opposition side, five members. "2. Myself to be Prime Minister, and also to take , the portfolio of Defence, and the Hon. Jlr. Allen to hold the pert-folio of Financc. "3. Wo cannot see our way to accept your suggestion that there should bo fivo members from each side without the Prinio Minister possessing a casting vote, or without tlio representative of the Native race being allowed to exercise a vote.

tion Party; and this proposal is also open to most serious objections. • In our conversations I indicated to you, that tho proposed National Cabinet, if constituted, should bo for tho currency of the war, and for war purposes only, and that all contentious legislation sltjuld bo avoided, with the exception that 1 suggested tho passing of legislation tins session to deal with the cost of living and legislation dealing with anomalies that exist in the Legislative Council Act, 1914, in regard to its operation after January next.' The elimination of all .contentious legislation with tho two exceptions to which . I liavo referred would make the Cabinet for the time being non-party, and it would be able to devote_ itself unitedly to the country's solo interests from a ivar and financial standpoint, Demand for Equal Strength. "It must not be forgotten that most important taxation proposals arc imminent—taxation rendered necessary by the war and pensions expenditure, and also owing to the serious <•- -tdition of the finances of tho Dominii- . Therefore it is impossible for the Opposition to commit themselves to the proposal for a National Cabinet with a pre-existent majority on the Government side. This majority of one could insist upon taxation proposals which might be at variance with principles and pledges which tho Opposition hold and had given to the country. ; "On the other hand, if a- National Cabinet with equal representation and equal responsibilities wore established for war and financial purposes to hold office during the currency of the war, taxation proposals would bo considered and dealt with by a non-party Cabinet" consisting of an equal number from each sido of the House. This would ensure practical unanimity in regard to taxation proposal?, as the equal division would enforce the need of concession on each side. Thus tho possibility of deadlocks would be avoided, and the best and truest interests of the country would bo upheld during this timo of unprecedented crisis. In my opinion suoh a Cabinet would be a step ")f the very greatest importance—it wculd be the strongest courso for either, political party to adopt, not only in the interests of New Zealand, but in the interests of the Empire. Additional Difficulties. "I hold that neither party should, under a National Cabinet, be in a position to dominate tho other in matters arising out of and connected with the war, but that tho Cabinet should bo so constituted that its members would unitedly support each other. "In conversation I pointed out to you that it would be practically certain, were the minority defeated in Cabinet on any important question, such as war taxation, they would bo compelled to leavo the Cabinet, and a condition oven worse than now exists would be set up. I cannot placo myself or'ask those associated with me to placo themselves' in a position which may lead to such a state of affairs. "With reference 'io Paragraph 4 of your letter, you may remember that I pointed out to you it would bo necessary with a National Cabinet that there should bo no contests for by-elections; and that, if a vacancy occurred in the ranks of any of tiie' ! parties,.the nominee ol tlio particular party concerned should receive the united support of tho other parties. Such a condition is naturally' essential to anything in the shape of a National Cabinet. Last and Createst Objection. I do not wish to discuss at this point all tho clauses of your letter in detail. Regarding Clause 2, however, which stipulates that you are to be Prime Minister and hold tho portfolio of Defence, and that the Hon. Mr. Allen is to hold tho portfolio of Finance: I wish to say that I am not desirous of having a seat in a National Cabinet, and I so expressed myself to you. Recognising the gravity of the situation, I was prepared to subordinate my personal inclinations and to agree to you being Prime Minister conditional on my- retirement after the conclusion of tho war. But to seriously suggest a National Cabinet and then make the stipulations contained in your letter as to the two portfolios mentioned makes it appear that you and your party desire all the power and prestige attaching to a strong Government during a grave war crisis, while at tho same time relying upon and expecting tho Opposition to accept full responsibility with a •minority of members in tho Cabinet holding portfolios which have no direct connection cither with the war or the financial position of the country. In plain terms, if the Government Party retain the Prime Ministership and also the important portfolios of Finance and Defence it is difficult to see why the assistance of tho Opposition is asked in a National Cabinet during the war and for war purposes. I remain. Yours sincerely, (Sgd.)- J. G. WARD. MR. MASSEY'S REPLY. HONESTLY ANXIOUS FOR A STRONG GOVERNMENT. The Prime Minister's last letter in reply follows:— Primo Minister's Office, .Wellington, July 28, 1915. Dear Sir Joseph,—Replying to your letter of to-day's date, and referring to tho, subject of a National Cabinet, 1. think you will admit that I have been honestly anxious to arrango for a strong Government to carry on the business of tho country during the war period, and to enable New Zealand to do its duty in- assisting the Empire during a time of crisis. Unfortunately, difficulties have arisen which neither you nor I have been able to overcome. You refer to my first proposal of six Government members and three Opposition members' in a Cabinet of nine as being unfair; but so far as I can recollect up to that time no substantial body of public opinion had suggested a larger proportion, and it should be remombored that this proposal meant asking several of my colleagues to mako great sacrifices: it meant asking them to retire from honourable positions, and to separato themselves from tho comrades with whom they had worked for many years. I must say, however, that each and every Minister expressed himself as'willing to place his resignation in lny hands and abide loyally by my decision. Strength of Parties. "You next' suagost that the Opposition is practically, equal. to the Gov-

"4. There are several details which it is unnecessary to mention at present. hut in tlio event of a by-election during the period of tlie National Government the practice followed in Britain should be followed in New Zealand, viz., that the vacant seat should go to a representative selected by a party to which tho former member belonged, and- that both parties should join in supporting tlie candidate so selected." A DEFINITE REFUSAL. THE NEGOTIATIONS TRAVERSED. Sir Joseph .AVard's letter in reply, which' follows,, traversed the whole negotiations:— "Leader of Opposition's Office, "Wellington, July 28, 1915. "Dear Mr. Massey,— • "I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 27th instant, which 1 received after the. House roso last night. •'Regarding your proposals for ' the formation ot a National Cabinet to carry on tho business of tho country until the termination of tho war, permit me to remind you that your first proposal to mo was that a,National.Cabinet should bo formed in the following proportions: — t . From the Government PartySix. From tho Opposition PartyThree.

This proposal I. submitted to a meeting of tho Opposition Party held on July 6th; and it was rejected as l an unfair proposal, seeing the parties in 'the House were practically equal in numbers.

"I was authorised to submit to you an alternative proposal which was unanimously agreed to, the full resolution of-the caucus, which was duly handed to you, being as follows:— " 'That Mr. Massey be informed that the Opposition considers his offer of constituting, a National Cabinet with six Government members and three Opposition members unfair, seeing the Opposition is practically equal to the Government Party in point of numbers. _ " "The Opposition is desirous of assisting the Government in war matters, and as an alternative to Mr. Massey's proposal suggests that such assistance could ho better rendered if the powers of the Secret Defence Committee were extended during the war, and in connection therewith, to enable the Administration t-o more effectually deal with the present crisis.' "The" Opposition Party were of tho opinion that- the ' extension of the powers and functions of tlio Secret Defence Committee so as to cover administration would meet the position, leaving tho Government of tlio day in possession of its full constitutional responsibilities as regards policy and administrative acts apart from those connected with tlio war. Tlia Second Ofler. "After consideration of this proposal, your next suggestion to 1110 was a National Cabinet fixed upon the basis of fivo Government members to four Opposition members, tho representative of the Maori raco in addition remaining a member ,of the Executive. "A meeting of the Opposition Party was duly convened by me, and held on July 21st, the result being the adoption of tho, following resolution, " 'That the Opposition, while desirous of rendering every possible, assistance in connection with tho war, as is evidenced by tlio facilities extended to the Government for the passage of their legislation, finds that somo of the difficulties in the way of the formation of a National Cabinet, which presented themselves .when tlio question was last considered, liai'e been accentuated since that time. " 'We believe . the best interests of the Dominion can bo served by the Government giving effect to our previous suggestion, namely, that they should call to their assistance (without Ministerial status) tho services of tho fivo Opposition members of tho Secret Defence Committee, who are desirous and willing or behalf of the Opposition to help fa Defence administration in any way iii which their services may bo available.' "This resolution I handed to you, and your letter of the 27th instant, which I am now reviewing, is tho answer. Other Objections. "Your ■ latest proposal, contained in the letter to which I am now referring, sets out that n National Cabinet should comprise six members from tho Government Party and five from the Ojpposi-

I oniment Party in point of numbers. The relative strength of parties is 41 to 39, but it seems to me there is another way of looking at this matter, and it is this: that if tho members of a- National Cabinet chosen from both sides are to be in proportion to the number of members behind them, they should be in proportion to the number of members upon tlio Government side or upon the Opposition sido who would actually support the new Administration. This I did not even propose because, from what I was given to understand, 1 felt certain that thero was a very lart;o proportion of tho Opposition members who would not, under any circumstances, consent to support a National Government. But I certainly did suggest a proportion of five to four as a way out of tho difficulty. This you and your party decided that you could not accept. Negotiations, however, still continued, and I think I am right in saying that the next suggestion came from yourself. It was that thero should bo an equal number of European members on each sido and that 1, as Prime Minister, should possess a deliberative and a casting vote. This I accepted uiion tho understanding that tho member of the Executive representing tlio Native race should bo requested not to exercise a vote, except on matters directly affecting his people. Opposition Offer Withdrawn. "At this timo matters looked favourable for the formation of a National Cabinet, but when we met again you withdrew this offer, and I put forward tlio six-to-five proposal—the six members of' Cabinet to include the lion. Dr. Pomare, who is not at present actually a member of tho Cabinet, but who is a member of the Executive Council. This arrangement, if it had been agreed to, would havo given the Opposition five European representatives in the Lower House. The Government would have had four European representatives in that Chamber, and the Hon. Dr. Pomare, the Leader of the Legislative Council retaining the position which lie now occupies. I was prepared to stand by this proposal, and there were hopes that matters might havo been satisfactorily arranged oil this basis. Objections to Equality. "Regarding your suggestion that a non-party Cabinet consisting of an equal number from each side of the House would make deadlocks impossible, I regret that 1 am unable to concur in tho view that you havo expressed. It seems to mo that in a Cabinet of live and five, as a result of its very composition, deadlocks would constantly arise, inasmuch as upon every question upon which there was an equal division, no effective decision could be arrived at. Further, your proposal meant placing your party in precisely- tho samo position as the Government party, which is in the majority, and whilst I am anxious to avoid all party conflict at present, and desire, if possible, to secure your co-operation, I consider that in any arrangement como to tho Government of the day is entitled to enjoy,. at any rate nominally, a preponderance of power. The British Precedent. "I agree with you that all contentious legislation should be avoided during tho war period, ami there would be no difficulty on my part so far as that condition was concerned. But there is ono suggestion in your letter which I think should not have been made, and which is contained in the following extract: — " 'To seriously suggest a National Cabinet and then mako tho stipula- . tions contained in your letter as to the two portfolios mentioned (Defence and Finance), nakes it appear that you and your party desire all the power and prestige attaching to. a strong Government during a grave war crisis, while at the samo timo relying upon and expecting the Op- ' position to accopt full responsibility with a minority of members in t'lio Cabinet, holding portfolios which havo no direct connection either with tho war or file financal position 0 f

tho country.' "When National Governments have been formed in other countries, in Britain for instance, the Leador of the Government in power held tho.position of Primo Minister, and tho portfolios havo been allocated by him, probably after consultation with his cplleagues; but in this country tlio portfolios oi' Defenco and Finance aro not by any means tho only ones of importance. As a matter of fact, the Legislature has indicated, by giving a salary of' £300 per annum moro to tho Minister of Railways than to other Ministers, oxcept the Primo Minister, that it regards tho portfolio of Railways as next in importance and moro important than the portfolios of Defence and Finance. Tl-ere are a number of other important portfolios, as • you know, such as Post and Telegraphs, Lands, Public Health. Education, Agriculture, Labour. Public Works, etc. "I might- remind'you also that when tho British National Government was formed only a short timo ago tho proportion of members of the different parties was twelve Government and nine Opposition, including ono for Labour, bin not' counting the Secretary of for AVar, who belongs to neither party and is iiriniiticdlj not a politician. "Tho People Must Judge." "I observo that in one place you refer to what you call 'tho serious condition of the finances of the Dominion.' I am liappy to b© ablo to stata tliat, apart from tho war expenditure and the general effect of tlio war, tlio finaiicial position of the country was never more satisfactory. As I have said. I have made a sincere attempt to provide against a serious difficulty during a critical period. I havo done what I believed to be my plain duty to the Empire and tho country, and although my efforts have failed it is consoling to' me to know that I have been supported in a most generous and loyal spirit by my colleagues and by the members of my party. nether my actions havo been right or whether they have been wrong, the people ot tlie country must judge. "I remain, yours sincerely, "(Sgd.) W. F. MASSEY." Sir Joseph Ward is drafting a further reply to the Prime Minister's last letter, but a copy of tho letter was not available at an early hour this morning.