PARTY FUSION.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20107, 10 December 1930, Page 10

PARTY FUSION.

ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES

OF POLICY. ADDRESS BY MR D. JONES. Emphasising the essential differences between the two Parties, especially in financial policy, Mr David Jones M.P. in his political address at Meth'ven last evening held that fusion of Reform and United was impossible unless the piesent Government repented at least of its wild borrowing programme. While Reform was prepared to go to any length for the good of the countrv, it could not bind itself to agree to what It. was convinced was unsound policv. What the country needed most urgently, he said, was a leader with a majority behind him. It was being said that a fusion of two Parties was needed, said Mr Jones. But there had been such a fusion for two years —between the Labour Party and the United Party. There was no doubt, that there was some understanding between the leaders of these two Parties. When Mr Vincent Ward put the planks of his platform before the Invcrcargill electors, he urged no fusion, but co-operation with Labour. Fusion of Labour and United. "It is 110 use asking to-day for a fusion when it is already in existence," i said Mr Jones. "The present legislation is the result of that fu.-ion. Labour's policy is a spending and borrowing pciicy, and United's, a borrowing and a spending policy. There is no difference, and the result of the fusion is going to be a disaster almost as great as that in Australia." Salvation Demands Eepentancs. Tho cry to-day was for a saviour, and it was suggested that a combination of Reform and United would give this fusion. A fusion meant a common ground of union. Was there any such common ground between the two Parties? Salvation demanded repentance; and the United Party, before fusion could be considered, must repent of its wild borrowing policy. Reform and United differed on the point of relief waeres of 14s a day, and it was impossible to come to an understanding there. There could be no union between the two Parties while they were opposed on such essential points. While Reform was prepared to do anything to the advantage of the country, it was no übo starting out on wrong lines. "Coalitions are Bad." "My experience leads me to believe that coalitions are bad," said Mr Jones. "There was no proper union in the last National Government. There were the two sections, and they kept separate." What the country needed was a leader with a majority behind him, a leader who would not depend on any other Party. He was not placing Party before the country in saying this. If they thought that fusion would bo in the interest of New Zealand, they would be only too keen to agree to it. Differences in Policy. Showing how wide was the difference between Reform and United, Mr Jones admitted that his opponents had met a difficult period. When Sir Joseph Ward announced his extravagant programme Mr Downie Stewart warned him and the electors just where things were drifting. At no time in the Dominion 's history was a borrowing policy loss in the country's interest. Although there was a danger signal at every crossing, the United Party went full steam ahead. Early in the session Mr Coates urged that a commission of enquiry should be set up to see if railway building was in the interests of New Zealand. Beform recognised that in the last ?ighteen months of its office there had been a huge development in transport service. Mr Coates's offer was refused by the United and Labour Parties, which went blindly forward.