NO PROGRESS IN NEGOTIATIONS

Southland Times, Issue 24154, 17 June 1940, Page 9

NO PROGRESS IN NEGOTIATIONS

PROPOSALS FOR WAR CABINET FAIL

PARTY CLAIMS PLACED FIRST (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, June 15. From a legislative point of view the week in the House of Representatives has been a disappointing one, and it is probable that many will consider the sittings of the House unprofitable in all other ways except for the fact that a long Address-in-Reply debate is not to be inflicted on the country at the present time. In spite of appeals from all sides to place country before party, the negotiations conducted during the week failed because party claims were placed first and the “all-in” effort remains under the sole control of the Labour Government. The Government made clear its intention to retain all the reins of office before the House met by announcing the appointment of Dr D. G. McMillan (Lab., Dunedin West) to the vacant seat in Cabinet, and by giving one of the most important war tasks to the Hon. R. Semple. These appointments were followed by a somewhat vague statement from the Prime Minister (the Hon. P. Fraser), and later developments revealed that the Opposition had been asked to take part in a war Council and an inner war Cabinet. Whether these proposals would have given "all-in” control in the political field will probably be debated all over the country, but the Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. Adam Hamilton) made it clear that his party thought they would not, and the week finished with the political status quo unaltered. The Opposition also decided to take no further part in the Address-in-Reply debate and so left the Government with nothing to occupy the House. Mr Hamilton was emphatic that the Government’s proposals were not acceptable because they would complicate rather than simplify the war effort. He also pointed out that the proposals did not embrace the whole field of war-time activities, and declared that nothing short of a complete representative war Cabinet with full powers could make the effort “all-in.” He did not go beyond that, but lobby talk indicates that a serious objection to the Government’s proposals was the continuation of the power of what Opposition members refer to as the “hidden hand.” Although lobby talk does not elaborate on references to this hidden power it is fairly obvious that the Opposition considers that the Government’s proposals would leave the joint control of a part of the war effort subject to the control of the Labour organizations outside of Parliament. This is probably the main stumbling block in the way of a united effort by the two parties. Apart from the abortive negotiations, the only thing done by Parliament during the week was the closing of the Address-in-Reply debate. When the Opposition withdrew from the debate Mr Fraser showed evidence of considerable annoyance, but this was probably due to the rejection of his proposals and not to the dropping of the debate. The only speakers to “follow on” were the Democratic Labour member, Mr J. A. Lee, the Independent member for Nelson, Mr H. Atmore and the Minister of Defence (the Hon. F. Jones).

Mr Lee made a clever speech, but it was not one that could have been par - ticularly acceptable to the Government. Many of his comments were double edged, but he also put forward sound suggestions and received an attentive hearing.

Mr Jones also made an interesting speech but, as he dealt exclusively with defence matters, the Speaker (the Hon. W. E. Barnard) indicated very frequently that his remarks were not for general publication. The Address-in-Reply debate was also concluded in the Legislative Council, and consequently the decks are clear for any action that may come before either Chamber in the days to come.