“UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER”

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12204, 31 July 1925, Page 6

“UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER”

FURTHER FUSION SPEECHES IN THE HOUSE

MR WILFORD MAKES AN OFFER RESIGNATION AS PARTY LEADER INVOLVED ' The firit plain and detailed statement of the fusion negotiations that has been made came yesterday from Mr O. J. Hawken, the Reform member for Egmont. Mr Hawken was one of the Reform delegates who discussed the issues with the Liberal delegates. \ln his speech in the House yesterday afternoon, when the Budget Debate was resumed, be said that statements had been made in the House which were not cor* rect, and which had to be contradicted.

The Reform Party, Mr Hawken said, were undoubtedly anxious that fusion should come about. They did not, however, as had been suggested feel that they were unable to carry on. The party with the small majority that it had for the last three years had carried on so-loyally to its opinions and ita leaders that it had never been defeated in the House, not even,on small matters, and a party that, could do that under such difficult circumstances would surely gain greater strensdh at this coming election, and would bW able to carry on without'that'assistance of any other party in the House. Yet although they were convinced that that was so they were anxious that fusion should come about because they realised that there was really no difference in policy, between the two parties, and that it was a foolish thing to fight a make-believe battle. There was plenty for them to do in keeping back the Labour ideas-(Labour interruptions), and the majority of the people in this country, considered that the forces that were opposing such ideela should he united, ■■ Hnjust attack alleged In making the attack upon the Prime Minister, which some of the Liberal members did the other day, he considered that they haddone the Prime Minister an absolute injustice. [They had--in fact made <a most unwarrantable attack. He desired to state what the position actually was. The Reform Party delegates went to, the first cau-cus-'with an open mind, and they discnfcsed various matters. They went hack to their party, and were able to inform jihem that there were no real.differences of opinion in regard to policy between them except in one respect—• that of preferential voting. The Reform; delegates considered that they had made a certain amount of progress.' Yesterday the member'for Kurunui (Mr Forbes) had stated that the Reform' delegates knew that the fusion was to take place immediately. In regard to that he said the hon. member was absolutely mistaken. He himself had brought that matter up at the conference—the question of time —and it was discussed. - hut no conclusion was arrived at. • The Reform Party never-understood'till the very last thattherfusiop and the reconstruction were to be immediate. They genuinely thought that was not an important thing, and wont on to discuss more important matters. At the .next conference the main issue brought up and which they took to their party was this— that the Liberals were quite agreeable that Mr Coates should be Prime Minister, hut they considered that they were entitled to- five seats in the Cabinet. (OSes of .Oh! from the, Reform and Liberal benches). That was what the Reform delegates took to their caucus. . ... .

“THE CArS OUT” A Labour member: Now the cat’s out! . ■

Mr Hawken: I do -not say it was a demand, hut it was taken , back to the caucus as being what the Liberals to. duired. The members for Hurnnui and Stratford said they .believed-that Mr Coates should have constitutionally the right'to choose his own Ministers, and that he was given that.right by the Liberal Party.; which’ made no suggestion as to the number of portfolios that should be given or that they should have. (A Liberal member: Hear, hear.) That. statement was incorrect. Well the delegates took, hack to the Reform Partv that the choioe of Ministers, should he left with the Prime Minister, and the party was unanimous that it should be. The Liberal ..Party also agreed with that, and iso it was left to the Prime Minister,,. It was therefore unanimous, and the Reform Party considered that feal progresa had been made, and that fusion was. really in sight. ’ Every member.of. the ReformParty believed 'that, 1 So much was that ths case -.that the question of candidates- .was considered, and there wais a decision to go into the whole question,’ and work out those seats where they considered there 'should he agreement between the two parties. Prom the start the Reformers had -made it perfectly plain to the Liberal Partv that where the Reformers had already candidates in the field they would not ask them to stand down—hot for anyone. He was convinced that the Liberals agreed to that. In regard’ to selecting candidates there were,, however, a few sporadic efforts on the part of-some of the Reform supporters which they could not control, but-the organisation of the Reform Party played tile game right from the start to the finish. ■ IMMEDIATE RECONSTRUCTION DEMANDED

Then they went to the conference -again end brought up the question as to when tihe fusion should take place, and to their surprise the Liberal Party demanded an immediate reconstruction of the Cabinet and that fusion should/ take place immediately. The Reform delegates took that back to the Reform Party and the party left it to the Prime Minister as they considered He was the beet judge of wHen fusion should take plaoe. If the Liberal Party had bden anxious for fusionjto conserve'-the interests of their country they, without any hesitation, should have forgone the light to immediate fusion. After all they knew that they would be fairly, treated -in Jto far as offioe was concerned. -.What, after all, did their demand, mean taken in conjunction with their previous suggestion that they should be granted some plaoes. “If they did not want seats m the Cabinet, what was the reconstruction for P’’ the speaker asked.

“If there was no difference I say that was the reason. I.feel certain there is no reason why the Liberal Party should not have joined . with this party exoept that one reason which must have been evident to every sensible man and woman in the country.” THE REASON A Labour member: Five portfolios! Mr Hawken: If there was no differ*

ence, why this make-believe fight? If there is no substantial difference then there is no plaoe for the Liberal Party on the opposite side of the House. Fusion should coflre about on, those terms.

: i§’.what we, want. Mr Hawken; You want to know what you are to. get. After the Liberals had disclosed their hand in regard to immediate fusion and reconstructiom Mr Hawken said it was left to the Prime Minister to deal with the matter, and he, Mr Hawked, did not know waat happened then. The Liberals, however, had declared the whole thing wae off. Hs (Mr Hawken) was satisfied that there should have been fusion, and ‘he thought the Reform Farty did everything possible to bring it about. He was sure he himself had done so. He combated the idea that the big people were behind the Reform tarty in connection with the breaking °u_of the negotiations. As a matter of fact it was the very opposite. They were the very people who , wished it brought iboui—the big trading people aija the commercial conoerns. Everyone knew that- Certainly it was not the rank .and file of the electors who wanted flision.

Mr Corrigan: Do you think the country wanted it P « . ' Mr Hawken: I don’t think" the ordinary man worried whether there was fusion or not. In my electorate the country people certainly were quite satisfied with the legislation of the present Government. I have now given my cpnsidered opinion. I disgui&e nothing. I "believe we acted fairly and squarely with the Liberal Party* and their contention is unsound. They had the assuranoe that they would be fairly treated. In fact, they knew ’ they Would he better treated perhaps than members who had supported the Reform Party for years and years;.

MR WILFORD’S VERSION Mr Wilford followed Mr Hawken immediately. He, said he could not say what occurred at the. meetings of the committee because he was not a delegate, ' but he" thought Mr Hawken would have been fairer and have played the game better had he read to theHduee the report of the proceedings of the committee, a copy of which had been handed to Mr Murdoch by Mr Young, and’ which was now before Mr Wilford as he spoke. "It showed that* at the end of the second day the Government group suggested that the refreseUtation of the "parties in the usion should be on the basis of 12 Ministers, And on the present, stmigth df parties the Government should have eight and' the Liberals four. Actually the position on a mathematical basis was Government 7 17-31 and Liberals 4 14-31. As. the greater part of the fractions was in favour of the Government the Reform delegates contended that the Government should get the odd number. - The laheraJa . suggested that as the Government would have the Prime Minister the Liberals should get the out man. The Liberals suggested that they shduld nominate their Ministers for acceptance by the Prime Minister. The report was .brought to the Liberal caucus, and Mr Wilford told his party., that the, leader of the new party would 'have to have the constitutional right -to pick his awn, Cabinet. While the Idheraf Party was in" caucus they; received three . resolutions from the other ride.' The first was that the matter of Cabinet portfolios must _ be left entirely in the hands of the Prime" Minister. That was handed to the Liberal caucus by a Press-reporter who had got a copy of it. The; Liberals agreed to it.

BACK TO THE NEGOTIATIONS When the delegates met again the Reform delegates brought three fflfore resolutions:—l. That the meeting" was in favour of fpsion j 2, that the question' of reconstsuotion should be left entirely ih the hands of the Prime Minister; and 3, that the problems relative to the-.candidates in the field should-be settled fiysmutual agreement. The Liberals agreed -to the first, hut did not knew what the" second part meant. They did not think the Liberals should be asked to walk over to the other side, the Prime Minister till -after the election and becoming not a new party, but the Reform Party with a -national strength. t ' In a letter written on July 3rd the Liberals asked when the reconstruction was to take place, and they put in that letter the resolution df their party as to who should be leader, and-hedid not : know where there . could W a plainer statement erf an offer to leave everything'to the- Prime Minister so far as. Cabinet portfolios were concerned. The Prime Minister took four days to answer the letter, and then he said that for many reasons he did not' think that fusion was practicable at the present juncture. One of the reasyns given was the policy of his: predecessor, which he wanted to carry out. Yet> if Mr Hawken spoke truly that could not have been an obstacle, because he said that Hie parties "could see eye to eye. The other reason was the question of candidates.

“I DIDN’T WANT ANYTHING” The Liberals were supposed to have broken, the . negotiations, but Mr Wilford had not seen the Prime Minister Up to that stage, and before he had seen Mr Coates' Mr Coates had Written saying that fusion was impracticable "and could, not come off. Yet Mr Wilford was said to have broken off the negotiations. “I didn’t want anything,"'added Mr Wilford.

Sir James Parr: Did you discuss portfolios?- ; The Prime Minister waved at his colleague to remain silent. Mr Wilford said that they disetwaed every man on either side of the House, and 'he would not cars to repeat what was said. . Mr Coates: Better not to. Mr Wilford: I went there to try and bring this about. ... I have not demanded any . portfolios for our side at: any time. I never would, I had no authority from the caucus to do it, and it Was I who moved the resolution that the Prime Minister must have the right tp pick his Cabinet. Mr Coates: Well, why didn’t fusion take plaoe?

Mr Wilford: Beoanae the Prime Minister, could not mown sexoeef his aide. The Hon. W. Noewortby;- Put it quite baldandfairtjv ,1 - • mr wilford’S Upper Mr Wilford: I will make a straightout offer across the floor of the House* HERE IS MY OFFER; 1. My resignation ns Lender of the National Party. ’ 2. The making of a new party at once in order to secure sound, ■table' governmenfc with myself excluded from any portfolio, 3. The forming of o Nationnl .Party; for national development and social betterment- ' The matter of Cabinet portfolioa to be left entirely £o tfae Prime Minister.. Problem* relative to the candidates to be settled by mutual agreement. > We. met in our caucus this morning. Let ns have, no more v in-the-room offers. ’ Let us hove it out here. Mr Lolland: ..Unconditional surfeerfder. LABOUR LOOKS ON AND LAUGHS “L have to apologise for butting into this family quarrel," said Mr E. J. Howard. He added that it was painful to see 'the Enen being washed. That day they had what one might call an exposure. It was hard to convey to the working man a scene so painful as had been witnessed that afternoon. Labour came into the picture in this way. There had been a confession by Mr Hawken that the big interests desired fusion—that the big interests should get together to down Labour. He had heard it said that when certain people fell out honest men came into their own.; He beheved the Labour Party would oome into its own. The position was that the landed interests in this country desired the fusion for the purpose of blinding the people as to what was taking place. Mr O. J. Hawken, in a personal explanation stated: “I said that fusion was' desirable in order to 'combat extreme Labour ideals. The hon. gentle-man-has consistently misinterpreted my statement to mean Xabour." Sufficient time and attention had been devoted to fusion, said Mr F. Lye (Waikato), and he did not intend to comment on it. The story certainly would - keep to the next election, and would not suffer in .the keeping