PARTY FUSION

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 11 July 1925, Page 5

PARTY FUSION

A MINISTER'S VIEWS. ' ELECTION PLEDGES IN r THE -WAY. “IRRESPONSIBLE” MR. ATMORE: \ ' (By Telegraph. —Special to Star.) WELLINGTON, July 10. “Wo would all like to see a strongNational Government,” remarked the Hon. G J. Anderson (Alinister . for Labour) ’ in tbe House to-day when discussing Air.H. AtmoreN. amendment to the address-in-reply. “But the mover of this amendment, on his own showing, is a freelance. He -has made no pledges to the electors ; but lie fort gets that 'members on the Liberal and Reform sides have made pledges. With the best of intention, lie lias j umped in where it would hav.e been far better not to have interfered, in effect, he asks members to be disloyal to their promises at the hustings. If lie had- waited till the whole negotiations were, complete, he could have moved his amendment suitably.” ' Air. J. E. Corrigan (Patea): When is that likely? Air. Anderson did not reply; but he went on to suggest that in bis travels he had not heard much about the electors’ desire for fusion, though the newspapers had “written it up - The electors had a right to b© consulted. He resented the Labour suggestion that portfolios stood in the way of Reform accepting the Liberals. “The Prime Alinister lia s had the resignations of every one of his colleagues right from the commencement of negotiations, and no Alinister has expressed any desire to stand in the way of bringing about a fusion if the parties are agreed it "should be done.” As to when the partie s should come together. Air. Anderson said this “vyas under negotiation, as, so far as. h° knew, the matter was not ait an end. He believed that, when everything was conducted, it would be found that New Zealand would do the right thing, as every British Parliament would.

NO CONFIDENCE VOTE. . THE HOUSE, DIVIDED. MR. ATAIORE’S AMENDAIENT LOST (BY TELEGRAPH. PRESS ASSOCIATION.) AVELLINGTON, July 10. In the House to-day the Prime Almister (Hou. J. G. Coates) said he desired to make a. statement with regard to the amendment to the Address-in-Replv moved by Air. H. Atmore. (Nelson).' The Government proposed to follow the usual precedent and treat- it as an amendment of no confidence. No Government- could permit an addition to the Reply to His Excellency without so regarding it, and while the member for Nelson no doubt thought he was doing quite right, it was his (Air Coates) duty to treat his amendment as one of no confidence... In rising to move his amendment, Air Atmore complained that he was given to understand that he would not be called upon until 7.30 that and he regarded as most unfair the change in arrangements without due notice beino- given to him. He thought it savoured of sharp practice. He found no particular fault with the announcement made bv Air Coates. The Govei-nmem. aad the right to- take up wliat attitude they pleased, but- it was useless to say that they were following precedent, because what would the world have been if they had always followed precedent and had never gone in for . a change. He eaimed that there were men iu the House who were pledged to fusion, and they should not be prevented f.rcmv so voting because the Government whip was cracked by the Prime Alinister. At present the British Parliament- was the only Parliament in the world that-was functioning, because it had a stable and dominant party. No parliament in Australia was functioning, and here in New Zealand it was only loave s and fishes that prevented the parties comma 1 together so that we might have A stable government-. Air Alassey had and was entitled to great prestige, but as Prime Alinister lie had not functioned for two or three years. His Government had not functioned because he had not a majority in the House., and that would always happen when the parties were split up into fragments. Yet today me n in the House, were to be prevented from bringing about a. unity of parties by obeying the call of party.

Mr Atmore then read hi s ‘amendment os follows: “That, the following words be added to the motion of the member for Franklin: (1) ‘That it be imperatively necessary, in the best interests of the Dominion, that a strong and stable national Government should be formed during the present session in order to* provide a comprehensive policy of reconstruction and economic and so-? eiaj betterment, and bv so ministering to the true needs of the people avert the dangers of a breakdown of representative Government and the menace to orderly progress now threatening owing to increase of parties and- the consequent inability of the Government to function for the welfare of the State; (2) that no considerations of party advantage", personal ambitions or claims of candidates should be allowed r.o block the way to the immediate formation of such a national Government, and that in the event of t-lie parties concerned failing to arrive at an agreement to establish such a Government, full information should he given to the people showing the nature of the proposals discussed and the attitude and actions of each party, so that the public may then judge those who have failed to put national interests before the interests of parties’ and persons, and thus proved unworthy of public confidence.”

He contended that his amendment; - was not a no-confidence amendment, and it should not be made so iust because it might place one or two parties in an awkward position. Anyone who voted against that amendment, was voting against truth and in many case’s against his'pledge s to the people. The alternative to fusion, said Mr Atmore, was to hand the country over to extreme agitators. Judged by the local body elections, the people <>f New Zealand did not want these apri tutors. The electors had everywhere refused to more than two or -three Socialists, and had protected the public interests against the doctrines of revolutionary socialism. If Mr Massey could appeal to the country and come back with only 38 supporters, how could" the present Reform Party hope to do better? No member in 'the House believed they could do so. because* the law; of pluralitv ivas against them. They might sur- . : vive attacks in the House, but' when the majority of the people eaid they,

must go there was no appeal from that decision. . The amendment wa s seconded by Ai r J. R. Corrigan (Pa-tea), who said that as lie understood the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr T. M. Wilford) wished to make a statement to the House lie (Mr Corrigan) would defer his speech for the present. . Mr Wilford then rose, and said he desired to make a correction of a statement made concerning him by Air Atmore. The Speaker pointed out that a« Air. Wilford ha t l exercised hu right to speak in the debate he could only make a correction by leave of the House. Air. Atmore asked if he would have the right to reply. The Speaker said this was not permissible.

When the Speaker asked if it was the pleasure of the House that it would hear AH. Wilford, Mr. Atmore objected and leave had to be refused. LABOUR AMENDMENT.

Air. P. Eraser (Wellington Central) moved the following amendment to AD. Atmore’s motion: “That all words alter ‘is’ in the first .line be omitted, and that the following words be inserted pi lieu thereof: ‘lt is desirable in the interests of the Dominion that the three-partv svstem should com e to an end, and that the proposed union between the Reform and Liberal paities should he consummated; that there is no single political principle upon which the two parties mentioned are m disagreement, and that no question of the allocation of portfolios, personal ambitions, or the claims of candidates is any .justification for blocking the way to the immediate formation of a united Conservative Party, or the Reform and Liberal Parties remaining separate and apart.’ ” r The amendment was seconded by Air. D. G. Sullivan (Avon). The Hon. G. J. Anderson said lie agreed with a good deal of what Air. Atmore said. He had challenged members of the House to vote according to conscience, and not according to party. All wished to see a stable national Government, but many members were hindered by the fact that they had given pledges to their supporters, while he understood the member for Nelson was a free lance, not bound by anv jiledges. At 11.15 p.m. the first division was taken, when Air. Eraser’s amendment was negatived by 51 votes to 16, on l.v the members of the official Labour Party present voting for it. The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr H. E. Holland) then said he proposed to state Labour’s position on Mr. Atmore’s amendment. As the Governmerit liad made it a matter of lU> ~ confidence, Labour would bo consistent and vote against the Governmnet.

THE DIVISION LIST. A division was taken on Air. Atmore’s amendment, when it was defeated by 34 votes to 30. Following is the division list: For the amendment (30). —Annstrong, Atmore, Bertram, Perrelle, Forbes, Fraser, Hanan. Holland, Horn, Howard, Langstone, Lee, Lye, AlcCombs, Alcllvride, AlcKav, AlcKeen, AlacPherson, Masters. Monteitli, Alunro, O’Brien, Parry, Ransome, Savage, Sidey, Smith, Sullivan. Veitch, WiL ford. Against the amendment (34). Anderson, Bell Bitchener, Bollard, Burnett, Coates, J. Al. Dickson, J. S. Dickson, Field, Girling. Glenn, Harris. Hawken, Hockiey, Hudson, Hunter. Linklater, Luke, McLennan, AlcLeod. McAlillan, Nash, Nos worthy, Parr. Poland, Pomare. Potter Sir R. H. Rhodes, T. AA . Rhodes. F. J. Rolleston, J. C* Rolleston, Sykes, Williams, Weight. Pairs. —For: Jordon. Buddo. Murdoch, Edie, Thomson, Ngata. Corrigan. Against: Stewart, Guthrie, Witty, Tsitt, TJru, Henare, Young.