THE NATIONAL CABINET PROPOSALS

Southland Times, Issue 17486, 29 July 1915, Page 6

THE NATIONAL CABINET PROPOSALS

LETTERS* BETWEEN PARTT LEADERS. THE NEGOTIATIONS REVIEWED. AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 2S. The following correspondence which passed between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the subject of a National Cabinet has been handed to the Press for publication:— Prime Minister's Office, Wellington, 27th July, 1915. Dear Sir Joseph,— Keferring to our conversation of yesterday and to the proposal to form a National Government to carry on the business of the country until the termination of the war, I have decided on behalf of the Government Party to submit the following proposals for your consideration: — (1) The proportion from each side of the House in the National Ministry to be as follows:—From the Government side, six members, including the member of the executive representing the native race, who will hold Cabinet rank: from the Opposition side, live members. (2) Myself to be Prime Minister and also to take the portfolio of Defence, and the Hon. Mr Allen to hold the portfolio of Finance. (3) We cannot sec our way to accept your suggestion that there should be five members from each side without the Prime Minister possessing a casting vote, or without the representative of the native race being allowed to exercise a vote. (3 1 There are several details which it is unnecessary to mention at present, but in the event of a bye-election during the period .of the National Government the [practice followed in Britain should be followed in New Zealand, that the vacant jseat should go to a representative selected by the party to which the former member belonged, and that both parties should join in supporting the candidate no selected. 1 an-.. Tours sincerely, tSignedt W. I’. MASSEY. THE OPPOSITION'S FINAL ANSWER. Leader of Opposition's Ofdce, Wellington, 28th July, 1915.

Dear Mr Massey.— I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 27th inst.. which I received after the House rose inst night. Regarding your proposal for the formation of a National Cabinet to carry on the business of the country until the termination of the war, permit me to remind you that your lirst proposal to me was that a National Cabinet should bo formed in the following proportions, from the Government Party six, from the Opposition Party three. This proposal I submitted to a meeting of the Opposition Party held on July 6th, and it was rejected as an unfair proposal, seeing that the parties in the House were practically equal in numbers. I was authorised to submit to you an alternative proposal which was unanimously agreed to, the full resolution of the caucus, which was duly handed to you, being as follows: •'That Mr Massey be informed that the Opposition considers his offer constituting a National Cabinet with six Government members and three Opposition members unfair, seeing the Opposition is practically equal to the Government Party in point of numbers.”

The Opposition is desirous of assisting the Government in war matters, and as an alternative to Mr Massey’s proposal suggests that such assistance could be better rendered if the powers of the Secret Defence Committee were extended during the war, and in connection there.With to enable the administration to more effectually deal with the present crisis, the Opposition Party were of the opinion that the extension of the powers and functions of the Secret Defence Committee so as to cover administration would meet the position, leaving the Government of the day in possession of its full constitutional responsibilities as regards policy and administrative acts apart from those connected with the .war. After consideration of this proposal your next suggestion to me was a National Cabinet fixed upon the basis of live Government members to four Opposition members, the representative of the Maori race being an additional member of the Executive. A meeting of the Opposition Party was duly convened by me and held on July 21st, the result being the adoption of the fallowing resolution: “That the Opposition, while desirous of rendering every possible assistance in connection with the war, as is evidenced by the facilities extended to the Government for the passage of their legislation, finds that some of the difficulties in the way of the formation of a National Cabinet which presented themselves when the question was last considered have been accentuated since that time We believe the best interests of the dominion can be served by the Government giving effect to our previous suggestion, namely, that they should call to their assistance (without Ministerial status) the services of the five Opposition members of the Secret Defence Committee, who are desirous and willing on behalf of the Opposition to help in defence administration in any way in which their services may be available.” This resolution 1 handed to you and your letter of the 27th inst., which I am now reviewing’, the answer. Your latest proposal contained in the letter to which I am referring sets out that a National Cabinet should comprise six members from the Government Party and five from the Opposition Party. This proposal is also open to most serious objections. In our conversation 1 indicated to you that the proposed National Cabinet, if constituted, should be for the currency of the war and for war purposes, and that all contentious legislation should be avoided with the exception that I suggested the passing of legislation this session to deal with the cost of living and legislation dealing with anomalies that exist n the Legislative Council Act. 1914, in regard to its operation after January next. The elimination of ail contentious legislation, with the two exceptions to which I have referred, would make the Cabinet for the time being non-party, and it would be able to devote itself unitedly to the country’s sole interests from a war and financial standpoint. It must not be forgotten that most important lactation proposals are imminent, taxation rendered necessary by the war and pensions expenditure, and also owing to the serious condition of the finances of the dominion. Therefore it is impossible for the Opposition to commit themselves to the proposal for a National Cabinet ivitb a pre-existing majority on the Government side. This majority of one could insist upon taxation proposals which might be at variance with principles and pledges which the Opposition hold and had given to the country. On the other hand if a National Cabinet with equal representations equal responsibilities were established for war and financial purposes, to hold office during the currency of the war, taxation proposals would be considered and dealt with by a non-party cabinet consisting of an equal number from each side of the House. This would ensure practical unanimity in regard to taxation proposals, as the equal division would enforce the need of concession on each side. Thus the possibility of a deadlock would be avoided, and the best and truest interests of the country would be upheld during this time of unprecedented crisis. In my opinion such Cabinet would be a step of the very greatest importance. It would be the strongest course for [either political party to adopt, not only in the interests of New Zealand, but in : the interests of the Empire. I hold that neither party should, under a National Cabinet, be in a position i to dominate the other in matters arising ; out of and connected with the war, but ! that the Cabinet should be so constituted that its members would unitedly support each other.

In conversation I pointed out to you that it would be practically certain where the minority differed In Cabinet on many important questions, such as war taxation, they would be compelled to leave the Cabinet, and a condition even worse titan now exists would be set up. I cannot place myself, or ask those associated with me to place themselves, in a position" which may lead to such a state of affairs. With .reference to paragraph 4 of your letter, you may remember that I pointed be necessary; wjth,a<

National Cabinet that there should be nc contests for bye-elections and - 'that 11 a vacancy occurred in the ranks of any rff the parties the nominee of the particular party concerned - should receive the united support of the other parties. Such a condition is naturally essential to anything in the shape of a National Cabinet. 1 do not wish to discuss at this poicU all the clauses of your letter in detail. Regarding clause 2, however, which stipulates that you are to be Prim© Minister and hold the portfolio of Defence, and that the Hon. Mr Alien is to hold the portfolio of Finance, I wish to say that I am not desirous of having a seat in a National Cabinet, and I so expressed myself to you. Recognising the gravity of the situation, I was prepared to subordinate my personal inclination and to agree to your being Prime Minister, conditional on my retirement after the conclusion of the war, but to seriously suggest a National Cabinet and then make the stipulations contained in your letter as to the two portfolios mentioned makes it appear that you and your party desire all the power and prestige attaching to a strong Government during a grave war crisis, while at the same time relying upon and expecting the Opposition to accept full responsibility with a minority of members in the Cabinet, holding portfolios which have AP direct connection either with the war or the financial position of the country. In plain terms, if the Government party retain the Prime Ministership and also the important portfolios of Finance and Defence it is difficult to- see why the assistance of the Opposition is asked in a National Cabinet during the war and for war purposes. I remain. Yours sincerely, (.Signed) J. G. WARD. MR MASSEY’S REPLY. WELLINGTON, July 2S. Following is the reply sent by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition to-night : 2Sth July, 1915. Dear Sir Joseph.— Replying to your letter of to-day’s date, and referring to the subject of a National Cabinet, I think you will admit that I have been honestly anxious to arrange for a strong Government to carry on the business of the country during the war period and to enable New Zealand to do its duty in assisting the Empire during a time of crisis. Unfortunately difficulties have arisen which neither you nor I have been able to overcome.

You refer to my first proposal of six Government members and three Opposition members in a Cabinet of nine as being unfair, but so far as I can recollect up to that time no substantial body of public opinion had suggested a larger proportion, and it should be remembered that this proportion meant asking several of my colleagues to make great sacrifices. It meant asking them to retire from honourable positions and to separate themselves from the comrades with whom they had worked for many years. I must say. however, that each and every Minister expressed himself as willing to place his resignation in my hands and abide loyally by my decision. You next suggest that the Opposition is practically equal to the Government party in point of numbers. The relative strength of parties is 41 to 39, but it seems to me there is another way of looking at this matter and it is this . that if the members of the National Cabinet chosen from both sides are to be in proportion to the number of members behind them they should be in proportion to the number of members upon the Government side or upon the Opposition side who would actually support the new Administration. This I did not even propose, because from what I was given to understand I felt certain that

there was a very large proportion of the Opposition members who would not under any circumstances consent to support a National Government, but I certainly did suggest a proportion of five to four as a way out of the difficulty. This you and your party decided that you could not accept. Negotiations, however, still continued, and I think I am right in saying that the next suggestion came from yourself. It was that there should be an equal number of European members on each side and that I. as Prime Minister, should possess a deliberative and a casting vote. This I accepted upon the understanding that the member of the Executive representing the Maori race should be requested not to exercise a vote except on matters directly affecting bis people. At this time matters looked favourable for the formation of a National Cabinet, but when we met again you withdrew this offer and I put forward the six to five proposal—the six members of Cabinet to include the Hon. Dr Pomare, who is not at present actually a member of the Cabinet, hut who is a member of the Executive Council. This arrangement, if it had been agreed to. would have given to the Opposition five European representatives in the Lower House. The Government would have had four European representatives in that Chamber and the Hon. Dr Pomare, the Leader of the Legislative Council retaining the position which he now occupies. I was prepared to stand by the proposal, and there wore hopes that matters might have been satisfactorily arranged on this basis. Regarding your suggestion that a nonparty Cabinet consisting of an equal number from each side of the House would make deadlocks impossible. I regret that I am unable to concur in the view that you have expressed. It seems to me that in a Cabinet of five and five as a result of its very composition deadlocks would occur, inasmuch as upon every question upon which there was an equal decision no effective decision could be arrived at. Further your proposal meant placing your party in precisely the same position as the Government party, which is in the majority, and whilst I am anxious to avoid all party conflict at present and desire, if possible, to secure your co-operation I consider that in any arrangement come to the Government of the day is entitled to enjoy, at any rate nominally, a preponderance of power. I agree with you that all contentious legislation should be avoided during the war period, and there would be no difficulty on my part so far as that condition was concerned, but there is one suggestion in your letter which I think should not have been made, and which is con- | tained in the following extract : i ‘ To seriously suggest a National Cab- I inet and then to make the stipulations j contained in your letter as to the two I portfolios mentioned (Defence and Fin- : ance) makes it appear that you and your ; party desire all the power and prestige ■ attaching to a strong Government dur- \ ing a grave war crisis while at the i same time relying upon and expecting , the Opposition to accept full responsi- ' bility with a minority of members in ; the Cabinet holding portfolios which j have no direct connection either with the '' war or the financial position of the coun- I to-.’ j When National Governments have i been formed in" other countries, in Bri- I tain for instance, the Leader of the Gov- i emment in power held the position of i Prime Minister and the portfolios have i been allocated by him, probably after | consultation with his colleagues. But ‘ in this country the portfolios of Defence | and Finance are not by any means the : only ones of importance. As a matter i of fact the Legislature has indicated, by j giving a salary of £3OO per annum more i to the Minister of Railways than to other i Ministers except the Prime Minister, that it regards the portfolio of Railways as next in importance and more important than the portfolios of Defence and • Finance. There was a number of other important portfolios, as you know, such as* Post and Telegraph, Lands, Public Health, Education, Agriculture, Labour, 1 Public Works, etc. I might remind you also that when the British National Government was formed only a short time ago the proportion of members of the different parties was twelve Government and nine Opposition, including one for Labour, but not counting the Secretary of State for War, who belongs to neither party and Is admittedly not a politician. I observe that in one place you refer to what you call the .serious condition of the finances of the dominion. I am happy to be able to state that apart

; from the war expenditure and., the general effect of the war the financial position of the country was never more satisfactory. As I have said I have made a sincere attempt to provide against a serious difficulty during a. critical period. I i have done what I believed to be my j plain duty to the .Empire and the couu- ! try, and although my efforts have failed, i it is consoling to me to know that I | have been supported in a most generous j and loyal spirit by my colleagues and Lby th», numbers pa<ty, Whether

my actions have been right or 'whether (they have been wrong the people of the country must-judge.—l remain, ; Tours sincerely, (Signed) W. F. MAS SET. SIR J. G. WARD’S REPLY. WELLINGTON, July 28. In reply to the letter received by Sir Joseph Ward from the Prime Minister, dated July 2S, and which was received by the Leader of Opposition at midnight, Sir Joseph has sent a reply, but it is too late to get on wires to-night.