POLITICAL

Stratford Evening Post, Volume LVI, Issue 16, 15 July 1925, Page 5

POLITICAL

NO PARTY FUSION.

FAILURE OF NEGOTIATIONS

EXPLANATION IN THE HOUSE.

jr. .• Per Press Association. . . . Wellington, July 14. There is to be no fusion between the. Reform Party and the Liberal Party. The negotiations, which - have been in progress since a few days after the death of the late Prime Minister (Mr W. F. Massey), came to.an end this morning, and in the House of Representatives this afternoon the Prime Minister (Hon. J. G. Coafes) made a statement on the subject. Mr Coates sadi: “With your permission, sir, I would like to make a . .short, statement for the information of hon. members regarding the proposals which recently have been under consideration having for their ~qbjecti.y© the amalgamation of the ,two main political parties in the House. May I commence by saying that the matter had been the subject of discussion at a meeting of members of the Reform Party held in Wellington on May 27, mainly for -the purpose of selecting a new leader. It was then decided that the Government party were willing to enter upon a conference, which had been suggested by a representative .of , the Liberal Party, and that arrangements to bring about such a be left In the hands of the new leader. “I propose to place on record, for the information of the House and the country, the correspondence that has ■ , tU)ten place ; between the Leader of : the Opposition and myself, but be- i fore doing..,.so I desire to refer i briefly by way of recapitulation to an i extract from a public statement is- i sued by me to the people when as 1 i suming the position of Prime Min- i ister. v In that’ statement I said: i ‘lt is urged that as there are, In fact, i no important matters of policy at t issue between, the members of the Government Party and those who sit c pn .the Opposition benches the poli- I tical hatchet should be buried and t thus make the path clear for a t friendly merger. , Speaking for the s Government, let me say that we shall s welcome a!#'’proposals that may be s submitted.’ n And I indicated, fur- s ther, that any such proposals would tl receive earnest consideration.” t CORRESPONDENCE. g

This statement was followed by the reh'dihg of the early correspondence which passed between the Prime Minister and Mr Wilford on the subject, most of which has already been published. This correspondence showed that as a result of letters passing between the leaders a conference of four delegates from both sides was set up, the first meeting •Mr mb , June 18. The deliberations of these conferences, of which there were five in all, were conveyed to the respective parties. i On July 3 Mr Wilford wrote to Mr Coates drawing his. attention to the fact that, as a result of information given .to by the delegates, the Reform Party had passed a resolution “that the question of reconstruction be left In the hands of the Prime Minister,” and objecting that there was nothing in the resolution to show how or when reconstruction would take place. This, Mr Wilford pointed out, was most unsatisfactory, and 'his party and he requested an answer to the question; “Are we to un : derstand that If fusion is accomplished the new party will be immediately called into being and a new Ministry constituted by you from the new party under your constitutional right as leader of the new party,” To this Mr Ooates replied on July 3 to the effect that he hoped to send an answer in a day or two. On July 7 he wrote stating that reconstruction was impracticable at present, as he had already given pledges to carry out the late Mr Massey’s policy and it seemed to him that it was the first duty of the Government to carry out those pledges.

When this work was completed, with, he hoped, the help of the Liberal Party, they would then go to the electorates and ask them to return a strong, stable Government in order to carry out a national progressive policy which would conserve both the peace and prosperity of the Dominion. WHO BARRED THE DOOR? On July 9 Mr Wllford replied stating that Mr Coates' letter came as a surplse to his party. He was satisfied the reply had banged, bolted and barred the door to the creation of a National Party, which he believed the country required. Mr Coates, in his reply of the same date, said he regretted the interpretation which the Liberals had put upon his letter of July 7. He had not banged, bolted and barred the door. He was willing to continue the negotiations, but, as he had already pointed out, for the remainder of the present session he was pledged to complete the programme of his predecessor and not the programme of a new party. Thereafter he would submit himself to the electors, asking all those who believed in a strong, stable Govrnment with a national progressive policy to stand in behind him and to afford him their united support.

To-day Mr Wilford replied to this, saying that he could only reiterate what he said in his letter of the 9th inst, namely “that we are satisfied .that by your reply you have banged, bolted and barred the door to the creation of a national party, which, we believe, the country re-( quires. This view was endorsed by

my caucus at its meeting this morning,”

. ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS

Continuing reading his statement, Mr Coates said: “That, sir, completes the letters which have been exchanged between the Leader of the Opposition and myself. May I say that the correspondence makes it clear that the Government Party is in favor of amalgamation in order that a more effective and united front may be presented by those opposed to the spread of extreme Socialistic doctrines in the Dominion, which form the main portion of the platform of the political Labor Party in Parliament to-day. We hold, however, that such amalgamation must be subject to the two following essential conditions; —(a) That the question of ministerial reconstruction must be left in the hands of the Prime Minister; and (b) that the

question of the selection of candidates in the several electorates must be mutually agreed upon. “Now, in regard to the first of

those conditions, it will be at once admitted that the question of the selection of members to hold ministerial positions is one entirely within the prerogative of the Prime Minister. Any other condition would be naturally inconsistent with the dignity and self-respect attaching to

the office. In m y letter of July 7 I further quoted from my address to the people on May 30 when assuming office to the effect that the policy of my predecessor, on which a large number of members were elected to support, was in general to be maintained, and that it was not the intention of the Government to propose any radical deviation from that policy during the remainder of the present Parliament.

“I may further point out that I, as Prime Minister, have no mandate from the electors of the Dominion, but bold my position as a result of selection by the Government Party in the House conseuqent upon the death of Mr Massey. Therefore, I feel, and my colleagues share this view, that in the circumstances the only right and honorable course to follow is that which has been already laid down publicly by me.

“I repeat that there is no justifi-, cation for saying that the door has been ‘banged, bolted and barred.' On the contrary, the door is open for all those who believe in a strong and stable Government with a progressive national policy to give helpful support -in passing through the House such legislation as to necessary in the interests of the country, and when that work is completed we can then go to the country, after the dissolution of the present Parliament, as a constitutional or national party with a / policy which will be announced at the proper time, and which will conserve both the peace and of the Dominion.”

“In regard to reconstruction I have already stated my attitude and that of the Government, and I don’t feel that I can .vacillate therefrom- for the‘ purpose _qf meeting,. , certain political exigencies, however desir-i able in the opinion of certain hon-| orable members these may be.”

LIBERAL HEADER’S REPLY;

Wellington, July 14,

When the Prime Minister had concluded his fusion statement in the : Housq, the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr T. M. Wilford) rose and made a statement. Mr Wilford said it was necessary to go back to May 14, when, after Mr Massey’s funeral, a Liberal caucus decided that a National Party should be formed if it were possible to secure the co-operation of the Reform and Liberal parties. On May 16 a personal friend of his and of' Mr Coates (whom he would call “Mr X”) was asked by Mr Wilford to see Mr Coates and ascertain his views on the question of dmalgamation. “Mr X” found that Mr Coates, who w;as not then Prime Minister, was not averse to a conference on fusion, but no official intimation was given to the Liberal Party. On May 27 a Reform caucus elected Mr Coates as Prime Minister. He (Mr Wilford) wrote asking Mr Coates what was being done in the matter of a fusion, and he then ascertained that the Reform caucus had authorised conversations. Correspondence on the subject between Mr Coates and the Liberal executive had not reached its destination and had led to misunderstanding and delay. Mr Wilford said he wished to clear members of his party from the charges made in the press that they had been intriguing with the Prime Minister behind his (Mr Wilford’s) back. Nothing of the kind had occurred, and he eulogised his followers for their loyalty to him. After the respective caucus discussions representatives of the Reform Party came to the Liberals with three resolutions, as follows: '

(1) That the matter of Cabinet portfolios must be left in the hands of the Prime Minister.

(2) That the Reform Party could not accept preferential voting. (3) That the difficulties of the situation in the electorates be put before the Liberal Party and that the latter he asked to make suggestions.

Mr Wilford said the Liberals were agreed on the first question. As to the second the Liberals wanted proportional representation, but were prepared to take preferential voting if they could not get the former. The third question was involved In the second. After the Reform caucus had been informed of these conclusions its representatives came back with three further resolutions, as follows:

(1) That the (Reform) meeting was In favor of fusion.

(2) That the question of the reconstruction of Cabinet be left entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister.

(3) That problems with reference

to candidates in the field be settled by the parties in the electorates. Mr Wilford quoted from his letters to the Prime Minister dealing with these resolutions and the conferences, and expressed regret at the dissipation of the prospect of forming a National Party and Government. He and all the members of his party were convinced that a new party must be formed with a new national policy to place before the country. He" would say now from his seat in the House that what he .and all his party had agreed to during the conferences they were still prepared to advocate and act upon. They were ready to let the Prime Minister select the members of his Cabinet. The Liberals were prepared to abandon any claim to portfolios in the National Government, which should go to the country with a national policy, but they insisted that there must be reconstruction. No one was more disappointed than he that the negotiations for this amalgamation, which w’as so desirable in the interests of the country, had failed.

Mr It. Semple has been chosen by the Labor Party io cor. test the Otaki seat at the general election.