THE PORTFOLIOS.

Wairarapa Age, 31 July 1925, Page 5

THE PORTFOLIOS.

TWO POINTS OF VIEW. * A NEW OFFER. (“The Age” Special.) PARLIAMENT HOUSE, July 30.— The private negotiations of the fusion delegates were further disclosed in the House to-day when Mr Hawkcn, of the Reform delegation, explained how the question of the allocation of portfolios first arose. Mr Wilford, who immediately followed with his denial that portfolios constituted any bar to success, concluded with a public renewal of the fusion offer, including his own resignation. Mr Hawkcn first raised the matter by declaring that two statements had been made by Liberal speakers w-hich he would have to contradict. First he wished to say that the Reform Party did want to bring abbut a fusion. Not Ithat it did nqt believe it could carry cn without. With a small majority it had carried on during three sessions and had never been defeated in the House. There was really no difference in policy matters between the Reform and Liberal parties; and it was a foolish thing for them to continue fighting a make-believe battle when there -was plenty to fight in keeping back the extreme Labour ideas.

A Labour member: Ah, now we know!

In making their attack on the Prime Minister, said Mr Hawken, some. Liberals had done him an absolute injustice, and it was most unwarranted. “The Liberals were quite agreeable to Mr Coates being Prime Minister, but the;- considered they should have five, seats in the Cabinet.”

Mr Monticth? Now the cat’s out. Mr Hawkcn: I do not say jit was a demand, but it was taken back to our Party as being what the Liberals required. It was stated by Mr Forbes in the House that the Liberals believed Mr Contes should have the constitutional right to choose his own Ministers, and he was given, that right, but that statement is incorrect. We took the request of the Liberals hack to our party and the party unanimously decided, as is custpmary with this party, that the choice of Ministers should be left to the Prime Minister. He thought fusion was in sight. They reached a point when it classed his mind to raise the question of the time when fusion should take place, and “we were surprised when the Liberal Party demanded immediate reconstruction of the Cabinet and that fusion take place immediately. We took that back te our party, and they said, as on a former occasion, that they left it to the Prime Minister.”

Mr Hawken asked would the Liberals have been satisfied had the reconstruction taken place if they had not received seats in the Cabinet! Sir James Parr: What was the reconstruction for!

Mr Hawken: They might say it was reconstruction to form a new policy, end there was not the slightest reason to believe they would have been denied the privilege of being consulted on the policy. There was no difference between the policies of thi) parties. Therefore there was no reason why the Liberals should be- on the Opposition side. They should not wait to make terms and to know the definite result of those terms. Mr Wilford: That is what we want. Mr Hawken: Exactly. You want to know what you are going to get. Mr Hawken denied that the big interests were against fusion. It was well known that the commercial classes wanted it. Mr. Wilford on the Situation.

Mr Wilford suggested that Mr Hawken would have played the game better for his side had he read to the House the notes taken of the conference by Mr Young, the leader of the Reforin delegation. These notes were made at the time and a copy was sup plied to the member for Marsden. At the end of the second day, after discussing many questions of policy, the report continued: “The Government group suggests that the representation of the parties in the fusion. Cabinet should be on the basis of 12 Ministers, and on the present strength of the Government party and Liberal parties in Parliament the Government should have eight Ministers and the Liberals four Ministers.”

That, continued/ Mr Wilford, was the start of the discussion. It went on to work out the position on a mathematical basis, this being that the Government proportion was 7 17-31 and the Liberals 4 14-31, and as the greater proportion of the fraction wa.: in favour of the Government that party was to get the odd member. The report continued: “The Liberal group suggested that the Government should be generous regarding the one men more, particularly as the Government party would have the Prime Minister. As to who may be nominated as Liberal Ministers in the fusion Cabinet, the Liberal members suggested that the Liberal caucus nominate the names for acceptance from the Prime Minister.”

That report, continued Mr Wilford, was brought to the Liberal caucus, and he told his party that if fusion took place the leader of tho fusion party must have a constitutional right to pick his own Ministers. The Liberal caucus agreed, but when their delegates again met the Reform delegates they brought back three more resolutions, one of which raised tho question when the reconstruction ’was to take place. He answered this in a letter already published advocating immediate fusion. This the Prime Minister replied to after a delay of four days. He then said that for many reasons he did not think fusion practicable at the present juncture. I did not see the Primo Minister until all the correspondence had finished, yet I am said to have caused the fusion negotiations to be broken. I went to tho Prime Minister to try and bring it off. I did not want anything. Sr James Parr: Not to discuss port-

folios!. Mr Wilford: We discussed every member on our side on the front benches and on they other side. We were having a private conversation. “Why did it not take place!” asked Mr Coates.. Here is My Offer. Mr Wilford retorted: Because the Primo Minister could not move some of his side. I will make a fair offer to tho Prime Minister and his party. Abandon secret diplomacy and make s straight-out offer across the floor of this House. Here is my offer: 1. My resignation as loader of the National Party. 2. The making of a new party at once in order to secure sane and stable government with myself excluded from any portfolios.” 3. The formation of a National Party for national development and social betterment, tho matter of portfolios to be left entirely to the Prime Minister; problems relating to candidates to be settled by mutual agreement. This, added Mr Wilford, was discussed by our caucus this morning, and I have been authorised to make this offer publicly. We will have no more secret diplomacy. Mr Holland: An unconditional surrender.