CONFER WITHOUT DELAY

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 131, 6 June 1925, Page 6

CONFER WITHOUT DELAY

■Correspondence between the Reform and Liberal leaders has carried the negotiations for amalgamation as far as they can be advanced by that method. It is time now that the letter-writing phase should end and the personal conference should begin. It i s agreed that fusion is desirable so that a progressive national policy may be framed and prosecuted nationally, so that New Zealand may pull it s full weight in the limpn-e boat, and so that the machinations of Communists and extreme Socialists may not be abetted by disunion of. the moderates. Against these substantial articles of agreement there are to be set only the most trifling differences of opinion upon procedure: (l) Whether there shall be six, five, or three representatives of each side; (2) whether the •leaders shall attend; and (3) (which has not been raised officially) whether the leader of a new. party shall be free to select his own. Cabinet unhampered by any stipulation as to the number of erstwhile Reformers and Liberals it shall include. The question whether these negotiations began in the public declarations and published correspondence of the leaders or whether they were set on foot earlier and more secretly is one which may interest tacticians, still clinging to old ideas of party advantage, but for the people of New Zealand at large it is of passing interest only. It should not be further debated. The trifling differences of opinion as to the constitution of the proposed conference should not hinder for one minute the summoning of the meeting. If three re-' presentatives of each side can be chosen with sufficient authority to make decisions on policy iss"ucs, then the smaller conference is to be preferred. But the point is of little importance, provided the convention is not enlarged to the scale of a public meeting. In any circumstances au additional representative or two can always bo called in if necessary. Nor need there be any debate about the presence of the leaders. It has been suggested that their absence would help to keep out the bargaining clement. We fail to see that this is so, as no question of leadership is involved. Mr. C'oates's leadership lias boon tacitly accepted, nml Mr. Will'ord has voluntarily forgcone any claims even to Cabinet membership. Discussion of policy, however, should be facilitated rather than 'hindered by the presence of the leaders. It is unthinkable that Mr. Coatcs would adopt a policy which ho had no part iv framing, lie would have to be consulted sooner or'hiter. audit would hasten a settlement if he were to express his views (,j the. full L . ri ,,_ feroiK-i!. Olhervrisß tho Kcl'or'ra represenUttives no.uld, have to-.eeciwft

Ms approval and the Liberals would require to have the assent of their leader. Thus there would bo ] much miming to and fro, more negotiation, and greater delay. We believe the conference would have better prospects of a speedy and amicable agreement if the leaders took part. If they discovered that j their presence was checking progress, it would still be open to them to retire. The composition of a fusion Cabinet need not hinder a meeting at this sbage. It is a subject for discussion, but not for bargaining upon a basis of simple arithmetic. The union of two parties, as it will give the Government greater voting strength, so it will also provide more talent for the Cabinet. But it is ridiculous to suggest that the Cabinet talent will be present in each party in direct ratio to the voting strength. Numbers should not enter into the discussion. The selection should be made upon merit, without regard to old political colours. A Prime Minister selects his own colleagues; but if he is wise he always endeavours to make the choice one which will win their approval and does not disdain aid in the selection. He gives consideration to all factors platform ability, administrative capacity, and debating talent. All are of importance in forming a Ministry which will work well and [■will, moreover, convince the country that it is working well. Withjout stressing one factor unduly, i however, we believe that platform ability should receive full consideration at this stage. The new party must not be merely a fusion of i executives. It must be a union of •political camps throughout the 'country^ To make this certain it |is essential that there shall be a policy that will appeal to the country and also that there shall he men in authority capable of carrying through a sustained and effective campaign in favour of that policy, able to meet and counter the well-organised activity of the Labour extremists, and to arouse the enthusiasm and enlist ■the support of the best talent for a strong Parliament. But this is an issue to be dealt with when an acceptable basis of union has been laid down. The immediate objective is to bring leading representatives of the parties face to face in the conference room, to banish party prejudice, and to make union a fact. i