Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, SATURDAY, FEB. 8, 1930 CO-OPERATION FREE OF PARTY CONTROL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17179, 8 February 1930, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, SATURDAY, FEB. 8, 1930 CO-OPERATION FREE OF PARTY CONTROL

'.Mr. Poison, ns an independent member, was well within his rights, when he put out recently his remedy for the present political distress. As the head of the Farmers’ Union he could not approve the- heavy burdens the United Party, to which he is at least: an adherent, lias placed upon the producers. Apart from Mr. Poison’s personal views, in detail, as now formulated, to which we do not propose to refer, he made an interesting suggestion. it was that desirable objectives could be attained by members cooperating, independently of the party labels they were enrolled under. He distinguishes between what objects he claims to be natural as against those which he asserts to be artificial. He turns down fusion of the Reform and the United parties “because it would be an artificial union.” It is dillicult to grasp this rather subtle distinction. Why should it be more artificial for politicians, of varying brands, to work co-operatively for fusion of the parties they arc adherents to, than for the same men similarly to work together to advance some remedial measure concerning any one plunk of a political platform, or any great remedial reform affecting in any way the welfare of the community? Mr. Poison quotes the English examples of Lords Haldane and Balfour uniting in the advocacy of the London University, and also the co operation of Lords Haldane and Birkenhead in the passing of the Property Law Act, llhJd. These cast's are cited as if exceptional. This rather weakens the case that might be made. Since 1 STB, more than half a century ago, when Lord Kelborne, with the assistance of Lord Cairns and other law Lords, passed the .Judicature Act, all questions of law affecting justice and to a large extent questions concerning rights of inheritance and 'private ownership of property have been carried through tin 1 House of Lords quite independently of the party labels which each co-operating law Lord chose tis his flag. The other case concerning the London University is hardly relevant to the question raised. The charter for the London University, if its promoters wore so advised, would have come before Parliament as a matter of local concern entitled to assistance, unless contrary in any particular to the public interest. That point being satisfied, and the object being a proper, one, it could hardly form ground for parly division. There have been hundreds of cases where distinguished politicians irrespective of party have co-opera*ml in getting legislation through to advance local interests, scientific advancement, or railway development. This co-operation has never been discouraged by party leaders. On the other hand lenders of vision always are pleased when matters requiring legislative sanction can be dealt with in Parliament ns open questions. . I t is a sign of weakness in a political leader if he desires to monopolise for his party all possible questions of reform and bars the enterprise of the private member by setting up the party wall. Mr. Poison has to face this dilemma. He has to withdraw all questions of material importance to the producer or taxpayer from party control or he litis to leave it to the private judgment of the private member or to the iron heel of the caucus or of the Prime Minister to define what questions should be open subjects. If the maximum of objectives withdrawn from party control included all contentious matters requirin' legislation then the existence of the party would no longer depend

upon the measures included in its platform but upon the personal prowess or character of Ministers. Wo confess to a feeling of very sincere regret that wo are unable to welcome Mr. Poison's suggestion as practicable. We have often wondered why measures of reform, good in themselves, should so often have been deferred indefinitely; not because that which was right in itself was not needed, but, because party discipline intervened or the promoter in consequence of some act of independence had drawn upon himself the displeasure of his fellow-members. One aspect of this question can not well be overlooked, if co-operation in legislative reforms by members, irrespective of party, succeeded, and the cooperators were ,sufficient in number to carry measures independently of parties, they would themselves have created a party to which loyalty was due. The name of a party is immaterial: it is merely a combination of persons for the attainment of a common objective. As a party its members would have .surrendered the individual independence with which they started their quest. .Renunciation of personal freedom would not. have been escaped from: it would merely have taken another form. Leadership is inseparable from success in human activities. Leadership entails discipline. Discipline demands sacrifice. That party methods are responsible for many abuses, and much needless delay in the conduct of the business of the country is obvious. We cannot see a remedy that would not bo worse than the disease if every member found his ideal in being a law onto himself. There is another side, to :his question. A reform that grows slowly in obtaining public recognition

of its far-reaching importance usually begins in a very small way. The source al lirst. is hardly noticeable. Vdvocney moots invariably with opposition. The attacks vary in violence according to the weight, of the personal or 'co-operative, interests that may be adversely affected. .Reform is unpopular. it is declared to be visionary..:; Its results are uuverilied; they may be most; dangerous, ft was after many years of bitter contest and agitation, and, in some cases the expenditure of lives devoted to reform that the abolition of slavery,’regulation of the labor of women and young children, abolition of capital punishment. for minor offences, and the grant of personal right over their own property to women wore placed upon iite Statute Hook, if was onlv when

a party had become educated sulliciontly and was powerful enough to overcome opposition that a inert 1 cry in tin 1 wilderness became a law. Mr. I’olsdn must educate his party. if Isis independence is in his way he may have to renounce it. He is strong enough til get good work done. We wish him every success in his effort. An essential element to success must be that the objective is big enough: It must be of real importance to Hew Zealand: it must comprehend the true interests of ail classes.