ATTACK ON LABOUR

Taranaki Daily News, 26 November 1935, Page 5

ATTACK ON LABOUR

mb. w. a. sheafs address. SUMMARY OF CHARGES. Only as an Independent could a member of Parliament render the greatest service to his country by a free exercise of his own discretion, said Mr. W. A. Sheat, Independent candidate for the New Plymouth electorate, at St. Aubyn Street last night. He again attacked the Labour Party’s action and the methods adopted in replacing him as its candidate at New Plymouth. Mr. Frost’s extracts from the minutes of the Labour Party meeting that chose Mr. J. Roberts as candidate showed that only 23 people were present, said Mr. Sheat. Prior to the meeting it had been published in the Press and announced over the wireless that Mr. Roberts would enter the New Plymouth seat as the Labour candidate. The vote at the meeting at New Plymouth whether Mr. Roberts or Mr. Sheat should be the New Plymouth candidate on November 3, 1934, was not in order. / The Labour Party had strict rules that the consent of a man must be obtained before he could be nominated, said Mr. Sheat. He would not have accepted nomination for the vote at the meeting as Mr. Roberts had been announced as the candidate three weeks previously. It was extraordinary that Messrs. Flood and Draper, who had been opposed to him had nominated him. His explanation was that the vote was taken to provide a case to defend their action. He had told the “clique” that they were not the true representatives of the 3000 people who had given him their support at the last election. If all those supporters had voted at the meeting and decided against him he would have been content. He had z>ld them that otherwise he could no longer co-operate with the Labour Party in the political field but would find his own way of furthering the interests of New Zealand. The fact that a petition against Mr. Roberts had ecn circulated proved he was right in taking the stand he did, said Mr. Sheat. It was a reflection on the section of political opinion that called him a liar at Waitara that after he had given proof of his allegations a. New Plymouth not one of them apologised. Leading supporters of the Labour Party at New Plymouth and throughout Taranaki had privately said he was right but if it had been admitted publicly they would be put outside the party. The Labour Party prevented an individual member from speaking and acting on his own convictions by demanding he must be loyal to the party first and foremost. Mr. Sheat summarised his charges against the Labour Party as follows:— That at New Plymouth a small clique acted in defiance of their own principles in arrogating to themselves the right to decide party business. That in doing so they were undoubtedly “riding to orders received through their industrial organisation. That they declined to open the door to the rank and file of the party supporters. That they refused because they knew that if they did they would not be able to complete their scheme successfully. That they were encouraged in this attitude by the national executive, which in this matter was unduly influenced by the Alliance of Labour. That they subsequently endeavoured to force him (Mr. Sheat) out of the field in order to prevent any exposure. That having failed to do so they endeavoured to bargain with him to accept Egmont after condemning him at New Plymouth. Finally that if this could happen in the selection of a candidate it could also happen in more important matters of party business, including the control of policy. If elected he would co-operate with whatever Government was in .power to further legislation that would assist the country, said Mr. Sheat, and he would oppose legislation that appeared to favour one section at the expense of the majority. Mr. Sheat was asked whether as an ex-member of the Labour Party he considered Mr. Munro’s statements at Dunedin .vere the ideals of the Labour Party. They were not the views of a majority of the party, said Mr. Sheat, but some members held these views, Nevertheless Mr. Munro had expressed these opinions and it was for the people to judge whether they could support the party while that element was present among the members. Mr. Sheat was unanimously accorded a vote of thanks by acclamation. Mr. V. Pellew presided.