NO FUSION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 15 July 1925, Page 5

NO FUSION

STATEMENTS TO THE HOUSE BY PRIME MINISTER AND LEADER OF OPPOSITION

(From Our Parliamentary Correspondent)

WELLINGTON, This Day

Statements to the House of Representatives by the Prime Minister amt Leader of tlie Opposition placed the whole of the facts relating to coalition before members and showed that the negotiations were finally broken off yesterday morning, when Mr Witiord wrote to Mr Coates repeating bis opinion that the Reform Party had hanged, bolted, and barred the door leading to the creation of a national party.

PRIME MINISTER READS CORRESPONDENCE The Prime Minister occupied nearly half an hour reading the full correspondence. He reminded the House of ins statement on assuming office on -May 21, urging that the political hatchet be buried and the patn made clear for a friendly merger. Mr Wilford’s response, already published, was read, then a further letter of July 3rd from Mr Wilford, following the first conference of fusion delegates. In this, Mr Wilford asked the meaning, of tho resolution from the Reform caucus “that the question of reconstruction be left entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister.” There is nothing in the resolution to require you to reconstruct, either at once or at any particular fime, stated Mr Wilford. “I feel sure that such was not the purpose of the resolution. My caucus has asked me, after hearing the resolution read to them, to ask you if you will send me an answer to the question our delegates asked, and which so far- is unanswered, viz:— ‘Are we to- understand that if fusion is accomplished, the new party will he immediately called into being and a new Ministry constituted by you from the new party under your constitutional rignt as Leader of the new Party. You will, I am sure, admit it is quite impossible for us to carry a resolution to join up at some future date, which is undetermined and quite indefinite. Such a course would be wrong to our supporters in file country and also to the Labour Party, which party clearly has a constitutional right to our place on the Opposition benches immediately a friendly merger takes place.’ ” The Prime Minister on July 7th replied that he could not agree to immediate reconstruction. “As you are aware, in my public statement 'of 30th May Jast, 1 undertook that ‘the policy winch my late distinguished predecessor laid down in general and on which a large number of members were elected to support, is to be maintained. -It is not the intention of the Government to

propose any radical deviation from that policy.’ It seems to me therefore that the Government’s first duty is to carry out this pledge. When that work is completed, with the help I hope of your party, we should then go to the electors and ask them to return n strong and stable Government in order to carry out National progressive policy which will conserve both the peace and prosperity of the Dominion. 1 should also add that very complete organisation by my party has been effected throughout tne country and candidates selected to whom support has been promised, and it would be impossible, if fusion were immediately effected, to recognise adequately these commitments ami at the same time make due allowance for members of your own party who had thrown in their lot with our party. Mr Wilford answered the above letter on July 9th: “Your statement that you consider the creation of a new National Party at the present time is impracticable, lias come as as surprise to our party. As you will remember you invited us to bury the hatchet and bring about a friendly merger. We are satisfied that by your reply you have banged, bolted and barred the door to the creation of that national party which we believe the country requires.’’ Tlie reply of the Premier on the same date denied that the door was closed, and declared lie was quite ready to discuss in further details the negotiations.

Mr Wilford ended the correspondence on July 14th hy declaring tiie result of interviews with the .Premier had shown no change in the position and that the door had been banged. This, he added, was the opinion of his caucus. STATEMENT BY MR COATES

Mr Coates, having read the letters, remarked that he had no mandate from the electors, but held his position as a result by appointment by Mr Massey’s supporters. There is no justification for saying that the door has been hanged, bolted and barred. On the contrary, the door is open for all those who believe in a strong and stable Government with a progressively national policy, to give helpful support in passing through the House such legislation as is necessary in the interests of the country, and when that work is completed, we can then go to the country after the dissolution of the present Parliament, as a Constitutional or National Party with a policy which will be announced at the proper time and which will conserve both the peace and prosperity of the Dominion. STATEMENT BY MR WILFORD

-Mr Wilford said it would be necessary for him to go back to 14th May, the day of Mr Massey’s funeral. On the evening of that day a caucus of the Liberal-Labour Party was held and a resolution was passed to. the effect that if possible a National Party should be created in this country between the Reform and Liberal parties, provided common policy could be arrived at and a new party immediately established. On 16th May he met a personal friend of the Prime Minister’s and of himself, and he asked this friend to see whether there would be any chance of a conference being brought about with the two parties. On the night of 16th May, the friend saw Mr Coates and next day the friend informed him that Mr Coates was not averse to a conference. On the morning of 3rd July, the decision of the Reform caucus offering to negotiate

was conveyed to the speakers’ representative, and on the 4th the speaker wrote to the Prime Minister asking for a conference. The Prime Minister replied that day, expressing surprise that he (Mr Wilford) was not aware that the Reform caucus had passed a resolution regarding the negotiations. Immediately Air Coates's reply came to hand the speaker wrote him again, informing him that he had received no word from his representative and that the Prime Minister’s letter was the first intimation he. had received that the Reform caucus had offered to confer. The newspapers of New Zealand were then let loose on the Libera 1-Labour Party, every member of which was subjected to insults that they had been traitors to the speaker. He had hail to. remain quiet while attacks were being made on his party that they had been intriguing with the Prime Minister. Nothing of the kind ever happened, hut what hap pened was that a telegram from the Prime Minister to the speaker’s representative regarding the decision of the Reform caucus did not reach him until

the night of July 5, after the speaker had written to the Prime .Minister offering to negotiate. The speaker’s letter to the Prime Minister on July 4 was written, therefore, because he was with out any knowledge of the contents of tho telegram from the Prime Minister to his representative. Mr Wilford said he wanted to clear this matter up. because all through the country it had been suggested tluu members of his party had been disloyal to him. whereas they had been as loyal and true to 'him as any party could be, and had kept the confidence given them. Mr Wilford said that the Prime Minister had left out all the resolutions passed bv the Reform caucuses. The conference opened on the 18th June and oil the 191 H delegates sat from 10 o'clock in tho morning until 10 o'clock at night, discussing every single point of political policy from electoral reform down to long dated mortgages to farm ot«, and then the conference broke up. After the. delegates had reported to tliMr respective, caucuses, another conference was arranged and Reform delegates brought to that conference three resolutions from the Reform census, “and,” added Ml' Wilford, “for ihe first time l began to doubt them.'' The resolutions were as follows: (1) That the knitter of Cabinet portfolios must, he left entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister; (2) that the Reform Party will not accept preferential voting; (3) that the difficulties of the situation of the electorates he put plainly before the Liberal Party and they In-

asked to make suggestions for a fair and equitable solution. Mr Wilford said these resolutions were put before the Liberal caucus, which agreed unanimously that when the new party was created and Mr Coates was Prime Minister, be alone should have the responsibility of saying who were to be the Ministers lie wanted “to run the show” with him. In regard to the second resolution, the Liberal Party wanted proportional representation or, if it could not get that, then preferential voting. The Liberal Party had been asked to make suggestions in regard to candidates, and this it did when its delegates again met the Reform delegates. The latter went back to their caucus and returned with three more resolutions, which were as follows:—(I) That the meeting was in favour of fusion; (2) that the question of reconstruction be left entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister ; and (3) that the problems relative to candidates in the field be settled by mutual agreement. “I can only say,” said Mr Wilford in conclusion, “that no one regrets more than I do that it has not been possible to create a National Party. Every member of our party believes it should be done, but no member of our party is going to form a party unless that party is really formed and unless it is one new party. It has got to be formed as a new national reconstructed party with a policy that can be agreed upon which is a progressive one. Every member of any party has said in conference, and I have agreed to it, that wc were willing if it were possible to bring it about, to agree to the Prime Minister's constitution of the Ministry of the new party and to have placed in his hands the power of re-appointing every man he has got, without any one of our members receiving a place, but we are not prepared to join that party without reconstruction, without a new party and a new Government being formed, going to the country with a new policy. 1 am sorry it has failed. I have honestly done mv best."

FURTHER REFERENCE BY A MINISTER

The first- speaker in the Address in Reply debate last evening, the lion. A. D. McLeod,• made passing reference to fusion. He said he had listened to the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that afternoon and he certainly thought that a little more or a little less should have been said. He bad not entered into the matter except in his position as official head of the Reform organisation. All parties who took thoir part in political life to fight it out to its end, which should be a. winning end, must know the value of organisation and almost certainly there would bofailure without it. He had nothing to answer for in so far as his association with that organisation was concerned, beyond that it- was thorough, as far aw it could go, and that he owed a debt to the men who had come-forward under great disadvantages to offer themselves, one, two and three months ago. To say that they should be cast a wide inside that House was not right, and he knew who were the final deciders. As to whatever arrangement members might make as to how they should cut up the loaves' and fishes among themselves, lie had no hesitation in so far as he was concerned in leaving it entirely to their judgment.