FUSION DEBATE

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 July 1925, Page 5

FUSION DEBATE

“POLITICAL BILLINCSCATE” MR ATMORE’S AMENDMENT. (Special to “Star.”) y WELLINGTON,. July 10. “Political Billingsgate’’ aptly sums up the proceedings in the House to-day when fusion was the piece de resistance, thanks to Mr Atmore’s amendment, calling - for the formation of a strong stable national government. The battle waged fierce and furious from half past two in the • afternoon until half past twelve, and scathing personal abase was its chief characteristic. Mr Atmore attacked Labour and Labour replied to his “compliments” with compound interest, and throughout 'there was an interested audience in the galleries. On behalf of the Labour Party, Mr Fraser sought to improve Mr Atmore’s amendment by making it somewhat more definite in relation to present parties, but they had the somewhat doubtful satisfaction of voting with themselves as strong advocates) of fusion. p Sir John Luke and Mr Lysnar sympathised with Mr Atmqye, but their sympathy was not very practical. Mr Lysnar gracefully retired. from the chamber before the division was taken, and Sir John Luke thought the amendment was inopportunely produced, so he voted against it, and the upshot of persiflage, recrimina.tnons and personal “explanations” was that the House, by a majority of four votes 'decided that it did not want a strong, stable National Government, at any rate not yet. When Mr Atmore moved his amendment calling for the formation of a strong, stable National Government, Mr Coates, in reply to Mr Holland, said that he would not yet make a statement regarding fusion. Later he

announced that Air Atmore’s amendment would be regarded as one of want of confidence. Mr Atmore then rose and said that on the previous evening he was told that he would not be called upon to speak until Friday evening, it was not until the House had met, until the bell had rung, and prayers had been said, that he was informed that he was required to speak. It savoured very much of sharp practice. He had been told by 'the Leader of the Opposition and by the Senior Government Whip that he would not be required to speak until the evening. He did not blame the latter; but he thought'he was entitled to some explanation as- to why the arrangement should be suddenly altered, placing him so obviously at a disadvantage. Although it was customary to treat any proposed amendment to the Address-in-Reply as a noconfidence motion, it was not incumbent upon any Government to "do that, and it was a mere subterfuge to follow the custom. “Where would we be in the world to-day,” he asked, “fl we had followed custom in the past and never gone for a change?” The reason for the statement asked for in his amendment was that there were so niany members in the House who had proclaimed their belief in the necessity for a National Government. He would read the resolutions passed at the caucus of the Reform Party in 1922, when they declared for the absolute necessity for a National Government; Now negotiations were still going ahead, when any business of outside institution could have fixed the whole matter up in twenty minutes. The question of fusion had been before the people for years,- and tire date Pyiin'e’ Minister find the present Prime Minister had expressed themselves as being'-in favour of fusion. The Leader of 'The Opposition and other speakers had also expressed themselves in favour of it. If the resolution of the Reform caucus three years ago, had been acted upon, they would not have had 'the negotiations to-day. The trouble with the British Empire to-day Was that it was being whf'.te-anted by JrivwlutipriajVy Socialism.- Many Members on the other side of the House had been returned at the last election because of their avowed liking for fusion, and if they voted against it to-day they would be proving themselves unworthy of the confidence which had been reposed in them. What had been the result when Mr Massey had gone to the country at the last election? He had returned with a following of thirty-eight members. If that had happened under Mr Massey, what could they hope for under the present Prime Minister? He made that statement with no wish to reflect on the capabilities of the present Prime Minister, who, he believed, should be given every chance. Members on the other side of the House were unanimous that it was necessary for them to fight (he Alliance of Labour, yet they were*willing to respond to the crack of the party whip when the time came to vote on his amendment. The majority of those who were in the Liberal and Reform parties were New Zealanders, and the majority of those in the Socialist Party were not. The former were doing their best for the benefit of New Zealand, before the latter ever touched our shores. The Socialist Party was hopelessly alien in thought to tlie average’ Britisher aspiring to the Treasury benches. The Socialist Party showed how they would paralyse industry by the methods they proposed to adopt, and they were so utterly foolish and short-sighted that they could not see that by paralysing industry, they would also be affecting their own people.

FASCISM UPHELD

Mr Atmore repeated his challenge that he was prepared to meet them on a public platform, particularly the Member fur Wellington Central, whenever they were prepared to defend their Socialist actions in New Zealand. The Socialist movement was not confined to New Zealand. What did the Italians do in defence of (heir country? Was it Loo much to expect of men who were supposed t>> represent New Zealand, was .it too much to ask them, io make a little sacrifice, not of life, but of (he small party considerations? The people demanded it, and if the Members concerned were not blind slaves of the Government, they would do what the people were demanding through the whole of the Press of the Dominion.

Mr - Atmore, formally moved his amendment, which was seconded by Mr Corrigan. Dubbing Mr Atmore as one of the “minor critics,” Mr Fraser said that Mr Atmore had been digging up the past. Mr Atmore: I never referred to your past.

Mr Fraser: My past was not challenged. as the hon. member’s was on one occasion; I am quite prepared to put my private and public character up against the hon. member’s. Continuing, he said that Mr Atmore was throwing out challenges in the same way as he used to challenge Mr Massey. Challenging was becoming a habit and disease with him. It had got beyond his control and he was deserving of the pity of ordinary rational people. The speaker was prepared to debate the platform and planks of the Labour Party with Mr Atmore anvwhere ' T —v Zealand.

Fiercely assailing the Reform Party, Mr Atmore, “the-miniature Mussolini from.across Cook Strait”' Was now appearing in the role of a harmless little twittering dove, attempting .to move a vote of iio-confidence in those with whom he wanted to -make peace.? Mr Atmore had attempted to cast aspersions on the birthplace of members of the Labour Party, and yet posed as a great-. Imperialist. ' Certainly Mr Atmore deserved credit for selecting' Nelson, as his plate of birth, (laughter). “But,” said Mr Fraser, “I would rather be born a man in Scotland than a jackass in New Zealand. The hon. member is not a fair criterion of tin New Zealander,” Mr Fraser then moved the following amendment to Mr Atmore’s amendment : “That it is desirable in the interests of the Dominion that the three party system should come to an end; and that the proposed union between the Reform and Liberal parties should be consummated, that there is no sin., gio political principle upon which the two parties mentioned are in disagreement ,and that no question of the allocation of portfolios, personal ambitions, or claims of candidates is any justification to blocking the way to the immediate formation of a united Conservative Party, or for the Reform and Liberal parties remaining separate and apart. Mr Sullivan seconded. MINISTER’S ADMISSIONS. The Minister of Labour (Hon. G. J. Anderson) 'confessed that. with a great deal of Mr Atmore’s speech he agreed. Everyone would like to see a strong National Government, but the Hon. member for Nelson forgot that on his own shewing, he was a free lance while other members Had made pledges to their electors. In these circumstances he was asking them to be disloyal to their pledges. That was the effect of the amendment. , Every member had tQ put by the board the pre-conceived ideas he neld when he first came -into th House. The ideal would be for each member to carry out what he ebnicicntiously believed should be done, but that was impossible under Hit jre-cent system of Government. Mi Atmore 'had made a mistake by not .vailing until the fusion negotiations iiad been /completed. Mr Atmore : When was that likely to be?

“The Hon. member knows perfectly well,” said the Minister, “that h< would have had an opportunity of expressing his views later on.” Furthermore, the electors had a right to be considered in the matter. He agreed with Mr Atmore’s remarks to the Labour Party about breaking up the Empire, and in connection with this, he quoted from the “Maoriland Worker” there were forces at work that were undoubtedly tending to break up the Empire. The question was when the parties' should come together. The negotiations were not over, but he believed that when everything was considered, they would do the right thing for New Zealand. • Mr Hanan said that to make All Atmore’s amendment a no-confidence amendment expofeed the (strongest weaknesses of party Government. If i vote were taken, and the party strait-jacket was removed, ,then the first part of Mr Atmore’s amendment would be carried. s They knew that; from the expressions of opinion of Reform Members. It was a monstrous proposition to say that eve-y amendment should be regarded as one of no-confidence. If Alembers upheld that view they would be making a humiliating and pitiable spectacle.

Continuing, Air Hanan said that the people were asking whether the fusion negotiations were a gesture of deception, or whether honesty of motives were at the back of them. Who was to blame if they were not honest? More publicity should be given to fusion negotiations. He referred to the Reform overtures to the Liberals in 1923.

Air Nosworthy: What was the reply we got ? ■> '• Air Hanan : You know the reply we got. Why does the Alinister of Agriculture sit there and interrogate me? If he has the answer, let him give it. The public will look to him to give an explanation. If he doesn’t he will be condemned. (Reform laughter); If there was to be an increase of warring factions, no Government could function. A vicious f'ersonal attack had been made on the member for Nelson, but’ he stood as high m the confidence of his electorate as any member in the House. There was eVery reason, at the present time, why the National Government should bfe fonned; .?■ The country was getting into deep water financially, and the best brains would be required to prevent it from going on to the financial rocks, z « ON THE FENCE.

Mr Lysnar stated that he had been an advocate of fusion, but he desired to make his position clear. There were three reasons why he wouT.t not vote for the amendment, while at the same time he did not intend to vote against it. (Labour cries of “goodbye”). He agreed with the amendment moved by Mr Atmore, but lus ow.’-t reason for not voting was that the result of fusion negotiations was not yet knowp by the-House. Until that was known, one way or the other, he did not think it would be right for him to precipitate the matter bj r his vote. Again, if tnu amendment were carried, it might deprive the Dominion of the services of Mr Coates, and until the Prime Minister had a chance of making good, he did not wish to be a party to putting Mr Coates' out of office. Thirdly, he thought it was the duty of the leaders of the two parties to come to terms upon the, question. If they could not, he did not feel inclined to take the responsibility of so forcing matters, that they would be compelled Io come t’o terms. , If there was to be compulsion, then it must 'come from electors. AV hat was the use <>f bringing the two parlies together if they did not come cheerfully and agreeably? No fusion should be arranged uhless an agreement was arrived at on certain matters of policy, which were Tn the public interest. If the leaders did not agree on the terms of fusion, then it might, do harm to the Dominion Io force the issue at Hie present moment. Should there be no fusion, then Ihe two leaders should state the re;i‘ ons.

Mr Langstone said that the proper tiling to do in regard to fusion was tv leave the matter' to the electors. Mr Harris said that possibly a division on the amendment would prejudice the fusion negotiations. He had given his pledge to support the present Prime Minister, and he had no alternative regretfully to have to vote against the motion moved by Mr Atmore. “PALE PINK” TEMPORARILY. ' Tn regard to the political “Billingsgate,” which was; poured out from the Labour benches, said Mr Atmore, in speaking to Mr Fraser’s amendment., { linve long; ago formed an opinion of the member for Wellington Ceil-

•tral, and the members of the;Labour Party, so that I do hot- care- what their opinion of me might be A It was only an Independent that' could introduce such an amendment-,. ;as- he had introduced, and in" introducing such an amendment, he had not been out to secure the support of the Socialist Party. They had the .statement of the member (.for: Wellington Central that the Labour movement was part of the world-wide movement which manifested itself in Russia, and they had the statement from Air Holland that he was not a Pacifist, out was a revolutionary socialist, who would fight when the time came, .Mr Atmore said he objected to the uabour Party putting on pale /pink now because an’ election’ was near, when as a matter of fact, they were as red as ever. .

The division on Mr Fraser’s amendment was taken at 11.18 p.m., the amendment being defeated by 51 votes to 16. Air Atmore voted against itDIVISION LIST. A division on Air Atmore’s amendnent was taken at 12.25 a.m., and it was defeated by 34 to 30. The division list was as follows: — For the amendment (30): Armstrong, Atmore, Bartrain, La Perelle, Forbes, Fraser, Hanan, Holland, Horn, Howard, Langstone, Lee, Lye, McCombs, Mcllvride, AlcKay, McKeen, MacPherson, Alasters, Alonteith, Munro, O’Brien, Parry, Ransome, Savage, §idey, 'Smith, Sullivan, Veitch and Wilford. Against the amendment (34) : Anlerson. Bell, Bitchener, Bollard, Burnett, Coates, J. McDickson, J. S. Dickson, Field, Girling, Glenn, Harris, Hawkeh, Hockley, Hudson, Hunter, Linklater, Luke, McLennan, AlcLeod, McMillan. Nash, Nosworthy, Parr, Poland, Pomare, Potter, Sir R. H. Rhodes, F. W. Rhodes. F. J. Rbllesion, J. C. Rolleston, Sykes, Williams, and Wright. Pairs for: Jordan, Buddo, Alurdoch, Edie. Thomson, Ngata, Corrigan. Pairs against: Stewart, Guthrie, Witty, Tsitt, Uru, Henare. Young. The debate was adjourned on Air McCombs’s motion at 12.35 until 2.30 p.m, on Tuesday.