MR. SHEAT AND LABOUR

Taranaki Daily News, 8 November 1935, Page 7

MR. SHEAT AND LABOUR

NOISY WAITARA MEETING RUNNING FIRE OF INTERJECTIONS. WHY CONNECTION WAS SEVERED. CANDIDATE GIVES HIS VERSION. Condemnation of the Labour Party’s methods of selection, the allegation that it was now controlled by trade unions and doubt of its sincerity in putting forward a plan of guaranteed, prices brought uproar and cries of “Liar! Prove it. from a section of the audience when Mr. W A Sheat, Independent Radical candidate for the New Plymouth seat, opened his election campaign at Waitara last 11 The meeting was remarkable for repartee and interjections which the chairman, Mr. E. A. George, was powerless to control despite repeated appeals to the interjectors and the speakers. Atone stage he called to the interjectors, You are baiting, Mr. Sheat!” and at another stage he appealed to the speaker to confine his remarks to matters of Parliamentary policy, but Mr. Sheat completed the substance of his allegations that Lab* our’s selection methods savoured of American political tactics and that he had been denied selection for the New Plymouth seat in Labour’s interests because he was unwilling to subscribe to those methods. He declared that he could prove he had been invited to contest the election in other seats as a Labour man, but had been denied the right at'New Plymouth because the seat was “fixed” for Mr. J. Roberts. On two occasions, said Mr. Sheat, he had contested the constituency and could claim that, although he did not live actually in the electorate he was not a political carpet-bagman but had been constantly in the eye of New Plymouth electors for ten years. He knew the district and could claim familiarity with its interests. Nor could he be claimed as a vote-splitter. He had been the only candidate announced in opposition to the sitting member for several months. . , . . Replying to the editorial comment ot a Taranaki newspaper which stated that “he specialised in quarrels, Mr. Sheat said his only refutation was his willingness to fight for what he believed fair and right, He was not a wrangler and he bore no ill-will at the end of a contest ’ --EVIOUS ELECTIONS.

On previous occasions, continued Mr. Sheat, he had contested elections in the interests of Labour; but that was not to say that he was bound irrevocably to the party, He had at |he time believed the party offered the best channel through which he might serve the country. He did not believe in the policy of the other parties, because they seemed dictated to by big financial interests. The Labour Party had seemed opposed to this and to want equality of opportunity, development of the country, and as high a standard of living _ as possible. The party to carry out this policy had to be one enjoying the confidence of the whole people and one which would npt fie dominated by sectional interests. Since then, however, it seemed that the Labour Party had succumbed to domination by the industrial section—something foreign to the spirit of New Zealand. He had early recognised this danger because Labour Governments in other countries had been hampered by sections of trade union influence. He had no intention of attacking the trade unions, which served useful purposes in their own sphere. But Labour should not be dominated by those unions’ interests. Labour was claiming thousands ot votes this election that the party had never claimed before# But could these voters be certain that the party they might put into power would not constitute a Government dictated to by a powerful group of industrial interests that were out for themselves first, last and all the time. A voice: Say it again! . Mr. Sheat repeated his assertion and there was an uproar of dissentient voices, “You gentlemen from New Plymouth know that this is true, because you represent one of the sections that wish to dominate the Government of this country to the exclusion of all others, said Mr. Shear. “You will regret you have taken up this attitude. “YEARS OF SERVICE.” “I’ve given years of service to this party began Mr. Sheat. “Why did you leave it?” “Because I know that the party is dominated by sectional interests; I did only what any self-respecting citizen would do!” Voices: 800, boo! Prove it. “I will prove It in due time!” retorted Mr. Sheat, “Would you have taken up this attitude it you had been selected to contest the New Plymouth seat for Labour?” asked an interjector, Mr. Sheat: If I had descended to the tactics employed against me I could have stood for the New Plymouth seat in the interests of Labour! Voices: Go onj be a man. Never. Mr. Sheat reiterated his statement and added that if his chief desire had been to get into Parliament he could have got in. Voices: Oh! Oh! Never! Mr. Sheat: Rumours are being spread about this electorate damaging to me. I can prove that 'they are lies! The Labour Party does not want me to tell what happened because it is damaging to their cause. Ten years ago, said Mr. Sheat, he had r -ificed a job almost as renfunerative r that of a member of Parliament. He had dor: that for the Labour Party. In 1931 there had been a demand by the Labour Party for him to stand at New Plymouth. His personal position was such that he should not have accepted, but he had thrown his whole energy into lire campaign. He had done the spade work and had dome it well. Somec else would reap the harvest. Someone from outside had come in because he would not succumb to the “big boss” of trade unionism. The party at New Plymouth, dominated by the trades union movement, had held meetings behind closed doors to get rid of Sheat,” he alleged. He had been thrown over because of his views to make room for Mr. James Roberts. After all. New Plymouth had been only a second string; Wanganui had been Mr. Roberts’ own first choice. He had wanted a safe seat in Parliament. A voice: Can you prove these statements? Mr. Sheat: No, you have only my word f ° r SELECTION VOTING.

At the time when-the selection in favour of Mr. Roberts was being decided only five people outside the ranks of the watersiders were eligible to vote in the selection, he alleged. All other supportc- of the party at New Plymouth were debarred from voting, being temporarily outside the party. He had then faced a meeting of the party which told him that a change of candidate was necessary. He had told this meeting it was not truly representative of the people who had voted for

Labour at last election. He had told the meeting that he did not think Mr. Roberts was a man of the type required to contest such a seat as New Plymouth* That view was indeed held by the greater portion of the New Plymouth Labour supporters. He had suggested that the selection should be delayed until other supporters of Labour were brought into the official movement. Mr. Sheat claimed that a rule had been i sisted on at New Plymouth at this time that only a person who had been a financial member of the party for six months could vote in a selection ballot. In the next door electorate, Stratford, at the same time this rule had been ignored, he asserted, and a person endorsed as a candidate who actually would not have been allowed a vote in a selection ballot had he been in New Plymouth. Voices: We had nothing to do with that. Mr. Sheat: The New Zealand Labour Party had. At New Plymouth the nomination was fixed for Mr. Roberts. Mr. Flood, New Plymouth, denied that statement. A member of the audience: Are we castigating the Labour Party or listening to a policy? The chairman: You are baiting Mr. Sheat. Let him get on with his speech. Mr. Sheat denied emphatically that he had wrongfully retained' the deposit at the last election. He had held it against election expenses the party had been pledged to refund him. After efforts to replace Mr. Roberts with a Taranaki candidate, continued Mr. Sheat, the party had to go to the other side of the island to get a candidate who did not know what had preceded his selection. this stage the interjectors ceased and Mr. Sheat carried on with an exposition of his platform, but the argument was resumed towards the end of the meeting when Mr. Flood (president of the New Plymouth Labour Representation Committee) asked the following question: “You have stated you are out of pocket in the last election campaign; can you tell us to what extent?" “The sum is £l9 4s 3d,” replied Mr. Sheat.

“State tlie items,” said Mr. Flood. “I will not,” said Mr. Sheat. There was another uproar of voices until the chairman restored order. Enlarging on his answers, Mr. Sheat said he had been told at the completion of the campaign that the party was not in t, position to pay £49 4s 3d expenses he personally had incurred. He had not claimed the balance of his out-of-pocket expenses because he wished to see the outside creditors of the party satisfied before his own claims. The campaign committee had intimated that the party was £BB “to the bad.”

Mr. Flood: Why did you not answer the six letters sent to you demanding a Mailed account of your expenses? Mr. Sheat: I received £lO, my deposit, end withheld it in part payment of my out of pocket expenses, as had been arranged. Mr. Flood: Why did you not answer those letters? Two registered letters! Mr, Sheat: Why make a song about those letters? If you must know, I did not reply because I considered I had been insulted by the chairman of the campaign committee. At this stage the chairman intervened and said that surely this private matter could be thrashed out elsewhere. Waitara people had come to the hall to hear th° exposition of a policy, not a private wrangle. The argument appeared to be cont uIng until a member of the audience endeavoured to apply a closure by moving a vote cf thanks to the speaker. Others, however, wished to ask general question?. and the meeting ended quietly.