FUSION DISCUSSED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 14 July 1925, Page 6

FUSION DISCUSSED

MR ATM ORE’S AMENDMENT

VARIOUS VIEWS V . 1 i

The monitor for jNekon was warned in advjTn'co that* h‘is afneiidmenU which caJlei' for" tfio {oiTTia.tidu of a- National Government, would be interpreted, constitutionally and according to custom, as a form of no-confidence, comments the N.Z. Times. For that reason. Labour filed into the lobby along with the mover and many Liberals. Despite the warning. Mr Atmore persisted, with the result that the amendment, was defeated and he’ himself was rather severely handled by the Socialist leaders. The truth is that the amendment was ill-timed, and ill-timed because fusion negotiations have not broken down. There are conferences no longer between the representatives of the two parties. A 9 has been published in our news columns, ‘conversations’ have been proceeding between the Prime Minister and Mr MTlford on the subject- of fusion. Whether amalgamation will come. if ever, before or after the General Flection, none outside the principals behind the scens is in a. position to predict with safet-v.

In the circumstances, it would not have been politic for either party to have intervened in Friday’s debate. I 1 or the purposes of Parliamentary diseussion, the fusion case may be regarded as sub jtulice. The fact that neither Mr Contes nor Mr Wilford spoke, to the nationalism amendment should have been sufficient to satisfy critics that the occasion was not an appropriate one. That time will come when “conversation®” have terminated. The member for Nelson made a. lengthy and vigorous speech in support ol his proposal, but much of his ammunition .was either defective or misdirected. He attacked the Socialists too frequently from the wrong angle. In the first place, Mr Atmore takes these opponents of his far too seriously, and your average demagogue wishes nothing bet-

ter than to be taken seriously Call him a menace or descendant of Mnchiavelli. and''lie talks and struts the part. Ridifulb him and he writhes like a snail under a, baptism of salt. It' is merely enlarging the ego of the New Zealand Socialist to describe him as revolutionary. The word doe® not fit. From what we know of the party, it can more fittingly 'he termed convolutionary or involutionary: any respectable dictionary will explain why. Merely calling these people hard names is schoolboy warring. And at this stage of affairs it is of small profit, if any, to keep on hurling Lenin, the Industrial Parliament', and similar Bolshevik missiles at the heads of our Marxians. It, is true that they talked Bolshevism when there was a. "chance of Bolshevism over-run-ning civilisation. It is true, also, that they became much less incarnadined ■when Bolshevism was seen to falter in its Astride. Messrs Holland, Fraser, and Co. 'are too shrewdly opportunist (or convolutionary) to waste their money on the wrong horse. It is time, then, the Russian brickbats were buried. ’We rein ember ho more effective means of undermining the self-complacency of the Socialists than by exposing the fallacies in their declaration of faith. We recommend that course to Mr Atmore, wif-H the suggestion that it commence with (I) the'Seddon mantle purloined by Mr Holland, and (2) the unique “usihold.” 11 ■

AN EFFORT BADLY TIMED Attempting in the House of Representatives' to make the fusion of the two moderate parties an immediate and definite issue, the member for Nelson (Mr Atmore) no doubt was actuated bv the best intentions, comments Saturday’s Dominion. He is certainly right in contending that the formation of a strong, stable -National Government is imperatively necessary in the best interests of the Dominion.

He was on firm ground also in declaring that a- really effective antidote to the disruptive agitation and doctrines of the Labour-Socialist Party can be provided only by a union of moderate political forces. Air Atmore was nowhere more effective than in denouncing industrial warfare and the limitation of output. It is, as he said, a policy of madness to cut clown production by these tactics and then comnlain about • a'lowering of the standards .of living. j It"may be conceded unreservedly that the member for Nelson made out a strong case for fusion and is sincerely anxious to bring it about. At tlie same time, in moving his amendment yester-

day lie took a step which lie must see on reflection could net be effective. What lie really did was to' place those members of the House who favour fusion in a false position. Hr Hanan was very wide of the mark when he stated last evening that the vote on Mr Atmore’s amendment would show who stood (in tile House) for party interests and who stood for New Zealand. It lias been made fairly obvious that a majority of the members of the House favour the principle which is embodied in the amendment.

Apart, however, from the fact, that the amendment was hound to be regarded and treated by the Government as a motion of want' of confidence, it is clear that no useful purpose could possibly have been served by forcing a premature division oil the fusion question.

Even if members had been otherwise free to vote upon the principle involved, they must still have attached due weight to the difficulties that impede an amalgamation of the moderate parties. These difficulties may seem slight to Mr Atmore. They are nevertheless very real, and up to the present have proved insurmountable. The member for Nelson declared yesterday that if the question were submitted to a body of business men, they would easily and speedily overcome ail obstacles to fusion. We have yet to learn, however, that there are any definite grounds for this confident assertion. The question of arriving at an arrangement in regard to the selection of candidates in disputed electorates is one on which it is more simple to make suggestions than to give them practical effect.

As the Minister of Labour (Mr Anderson) pointed out last evening, the member for Nelson is in an exceptional degree happily placed in dealing with the fusion problem. As an unpledged Independent, lie is completely free to align himself with, those whom lie considers most capable of forming the strong and stable National Government, be is advocating. Reform and Liberal members, on the other hand, are seriously hampered by their own pledges and* those of their parties in dealing with the difficulties of adjustment and agreement in the. electorates which obviously are the crux of the fusion problem.

Our own hope is that these difficulties will ultimately be overcome, though they are not to be overcome by rush tactics.

VOTING IN SILENCE The majority of members of the House of Representatives were content to cast a silent vote upon tihe motion suomitted by Mr Atmore in favour of fusion, comments the Host. The issue was clouded by the action of tho Government in making the amendment one til want of confidence, and thus putting the party whip upon all members who Stpoa pledged not to vote against the

Government under such circumstances. We do not wish to discuss whether the Government could have found a way of escape from such a course, or whether it was indeed bound, as the Prime .Minister stated, by precedent and custom to adopt this attitude: but it is certain tint the way in which tlie* action was taken placed •members in :m exceedingly awkward position. The Prime Mims ter liimseli gave no load for an op and helpful discnLeon. I: is ov.o a‘ ‘ •

Hide to fusion is as obscure now as it was before the debate. Nor is the attitude of other Reform Ministers or members much better defined. The Minister of Labour made a vague reference to pledges, but lie did not state clearly whether these pledges stood in the wav onlv of Mr At min e's amend incut (as the Government had declared it to be one of no-conlitleriee) or of fusion. Still less did be enlighten Ids hearers as to how such pledges were tin

obstacle to fusion. The ease for fusion was strongly stated by Mr Atmore. do his arguments no reply was made or even attempted: and the eflei t iveness of his attack upon the Socialist Labour Party was fully attested by the bill erness and personalities which jthal party showered upon him in reply. Bui most Reform and Liberal members sat silent, and were satisfied to east a silent vote. A i t

it was declared by some of the .speakers that an untraryniellrd vote, of the House won Id have shi/Wji a substantial majority in favour of amalgamation. By thus voting silently the members have placed themselves in a ialse position, and it is incumbent upon their: to take an early opportunity of justifying limit' actions. .1 heir votes may Lie explained by tile pernicious party system; but tlmir silence is not si> ensny accounted for. At best it displays an unreasonable disregard uY the public right to information, ami a disposition to treat this issue of fusion as one of interest

chiefly to the political parties, ami upon which there is no necessity to inform the public;. Tin- debate ofi'ered an opportunity for taking the public fully into the confidence of members, so that their views might be understood and their diflic dties. of which so much has been made, might bo- appreciated. That opportunity was not seized. Seme attempt lias been made to excuse this failure to be frank by referring to Mr Atmcre’s amendment as "rush tactics” and "forcing.” Surely this is unroasonaUJo. It is six weeks since the proposal for a conference was made, and three weeks since the party delegates ctunc in contact. Yet there has been no official statement of the progress of the negotiations, no official indication whatever of the likelihood of success or failure. This is not treating tho* public as it should be treated upon nil issue of such vital importance. How much longer is the silence to continue? Are we to assume that the difficulties which hinder a satisfactory eonelusion are insurmountable, or that there is some doubt as to how the excuses for delay or failure will sound in the public ear —whether the public will not be inclined to say that there lias been too much thought of party and too little, of the nation? If there are ample and sound reasons for silence, at feast it should be possible to satisfy t'he public of ibis fact, and that neither party is playing for time and position.