LABOUR CONFERENCE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXII, 13 April 1939, Page 4

LABOUR CONFERENCE

PRIME MINISTER UPHELD OVERCOMING DEADLOCKS j CAUCUS AND CABINET WELLINGTON. This Day. !j Furt he. information on the discussion at the annual conference ! of the New Zealand Labour Party | in Wellington on Monday on the Question of the relations of Cabinet ; and caucus, the leadership of the | Prime Minister, Mr Savago, and me ! powers that go with it. are given in a I report made available yesterday. The ! discussion is said to have firmly esi tablished the Prime Minister’s right as I the elected political head of the State, j after adequate consideration and conj sultation on the widest democratic j basis, to give the final decision on the ( selection of Cabinet Ministers and for I overcoming any deadlock on matters of importance. | The report states that having addressed the conference and taken part in subsequent discussion during which | the vital question of the extent of the 1 authority of the Leader of the Parliamentary Party was raised, Mr Savage ! received an enthusiastic vote of full I confidence. MR SAVAGE'S LEADERSHIP I There was a note of drama when Mr j Savage, at the conclusion of his report, ! referred to a matter of vital interest to the Labour Movement—the question of ! his leadership and the powers that go ■ wilh it. the report continues. For some months now rumours have been circulated about an alleged split in the Parliamentary Party and a document has been circulated widely which gave some evidence of a serious difference of opinion. That there have been differences of opinion is not denied, the i report says, but that they were serious j enough to warrant the use of the term | “split.” is now demonstrably false. Monday's debate and the vote of confidence in Mr Savage and Cabinet have ended the matter. [ Speaking dispassionately at first, the Prime Minister outlined the situation ! that developed in caucus following the general election; but later his voice and demeanour indicated clearly that he felt his position keenly. Referring to an incident that had taken place, he said: “T don’t want people to tell me how much they love me, and then find they are holding meetings behind my j back.” PROCEDURE AGREED UPON j Mr Savage said that a difference of opinion had arisen concerning the selecj t on of Cabinet Ministers. After some consultations it had been agreed that 1 for the future the Leader of the Parlia- ] mentary Party should be appointed I during the final session of each Parliaj ment. and that he should consult the caucus and discuss the question of the personnel of Cabinet until general I agreement was arrived at. ) If considered necessary and desirable by the Leader a ballot would be taken, it being his duty to ascertain ■ the opinions of the Parliamentary Party to synchronise them with his own . right of final selection of the Ministers I with which he had to carry on the work of Government. “Nothing.” Mr Savage said, “coulc • be more democratic than that. Wc : are living in such trying times— I almost in the shadow of war—that il l seems more important at this time > than it has ever been before that we I should stand together as one man it is difficult to expect lhal

1 1 the 50-odd members of caucus should i j see always exactly eye to eye.” DECISION ENDORSED The president of the Party. Mr James Roberts, moved: “That this conference thanks the Prime Minister for his report; places on record its highest appreciation ot the Government’s achievements; and expresses full and complete confidence in the Prime J Minister and Cabinet.” The resolution also endorsed the decision of the Parliamentary Labour Party in regard to the selection of Cabinet Ministers, and providing a similar means of overcoming any deadlock on matters of major importance, firmly establishing the Prime Minister's right as the elected political head of the State, after adequate consideration and consultation on the widest democratic basis, to give the final decision on such matters.^ Referring to the relations that existed between the Parliamentary Party and the national executive of i the Labour Party, Mr Roberts said i that the national executive desired j nothing more than for the Parlia- ! mentary Party to manage its own affairs completely in carrying out the j policy of that parly. NATIONAL EXECUTIVE'S REPORT If, however, the Parliamentary caucus should ever have a question before it of first-class importance which involved special difficulties and which was likely to result in a deadlock, and if it was felt that the question was one that called for a broader consultation still, it would be willing to offer its services, and. if necessary, to follow the course indicated in the constitution in regard to consulting conference or convening a special conference. The most important thing of all was to maintain the effective unity of the party in carrying out its pledges to the people. Mr F. P. Walsh, who seconded the resolution moved by Mr Roberts, said that there could not be progress without differences of opinion, but differences of opinion must not be allowed to halt progress. If opinion in caucus should develop into a deadlock it was right and proper to conserve for the Prime Minister the final ■decision as to what should be the next step taken. The leadership of Mr Savage was invaluable. To recognise its value fully was not in any | way investing the Leader with dictatorial powers. A document which has had a wide j circulation in New Zealand during re-j cent months, an open letter to the members of Parliamentary Labour Party, the authorship of which is usually attributed to Mr J. A. Lee, member for Grey Lynn, was discussed at a long session of the Labour Party conference on Tuesday. says the Wellington correspondent of the New Zealand “Herald". The letter is highly critical of the Government’s financial policy, and particularly condemns what is termed the dilatoriness of the Minister of Finance, instancing delay in imposing control of London exchange. CONTROL OF EXCHANGE The discussion was not open to the press, but it is understood that when ; Mr Nash made his report as Minister | of Finance, a report in effect defend- , ing his administration against the charges levelled at him from within the ranks of the Parliamentary Labour Party, the only new explanation of the Government’s financial policy he made was that the Government had not introduced exchange control 12 months earlier than it did because at the time when other countries were breaking agreements, New Zealand wanted to uphold its agreements. To have introduced exchange control would have been a repudiation of the Ottawa agreement.

AUCKLAND DELEGATE'S MOVE No mention of what is known as the j Lee letter was made by Mr Nash. This was no surprise, because it was understood by some delegates that the na- | tional executive of the party had agreed 1 1 that no mention of the document; ; 1 should be made. | However, no attempt was made to' suppress or side-track a free discussion when an Auckland delegate moved a motion to the effect that the conference express its condemnation of a cir- J cular issued by Mr J. A. Lee. that it was of opinion that no member of the Parliamentary Labour Party had the 1 right to criticise openly the policy of, the Government or of any Minister and that no member be allowed to pub- ; lish such a document without the ap- I j proval of caucus. j MINISTER'S AMENDMENT ! While not admitting authorship and | circulation of the letter among members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Mr Lee in a statement to the conference claimed the right to communicate with other members of the Parliamentary part'’. He denied that he was responsible for the external circulation of the letter. As an amendment to the motion, the Minister of Education, the Hon. P. Fraser, moved that the matter be referred to the national executive for action. The issue had not been fully debated when the conference adjourned.