THE FUSION ISSUE

Hokitika Guardian, 1 May 1931, Page 5

THE FUSION ISSUE

NEWSPAPER COMMENT. AUCKLAND, April 29. Tile “Auckland Star” see 6 in the difficulties of the special session, tne reason for .Mr Forbes’s offer. The “Star” draws a distinction between a National Government formed for the special purpose of the time and a National Party, with a more or less permanent basis and aims. It would have liked to see the present Government carry on until the end of the year and go to the country on its record. but the Government was forced by grave uncertainty as to the fate of its measures next session. Tlie only justification for union now was the serious state of the national finance.

Summarising the prospects the “Star” concludes bv saying that in every country a National Government formed by a union of parties ha K proved to have serious drawbacks. It questions whether Conservatism and Liberalism can dwell permanently or indefinitely in one house and whether the country has given a mandate for such a union, “The two parties shouUj bear in mind that union must strengthen Labour's position hy making it the only alternative Government,” states the paper. “The position is not unlike that of the war years when the parties sank their dfferenoes, but eventually returned to their original state, There is no reason why if United and Reform agree to combine now a specific term should not be put on the union, istioll a .course might remove some of the more serloiiH objections to fusion.. 1 ’

In the course of an editorial, the “New Zealand Herald” states: “The first impression of Mr Forbes's proposal of a National Party will be that he and his colleagues have made a handsome and generous offer to their political opponents. That impression may lie accepted as ;> correct appraisement of' the spirit in which the invitation lias been issued. Nevertheless, the purpose of the proposal is to meet entirely practical difficult,ie e and its implications must he determined by practical rather than sentimental tests. “It does no injustice to Mr Forbes and his colleagues to conclude ' that their proposal really amounts to an acknowledgment that in the . present circumstances, economic and political,' they do not feel competent <to carry on the. Government of the country. The essential meaning of Mr Forbes’s announcement is that, the Government cannot remain in office subservient to an independent party, so that the alterative to fusion is either the diesolution of Parliament or the formation of a new Government to which the United Party would give its support during the remaining session.” WELLINGTON, April 29.

The Reform journal, “The Dominion,” commenting editorially on Mr Forheg’s offer, says that the proposal deserves proper consideration and care. exploration of the ground in advance to see if the proposed national edifice will rest on a firm foundation. A true basis must first be r<?ncjied pn matters of policy, “The llteform Party has therefore wisely decoded , not to rush matters, 1 ’ says the paper, “It must first nfloer tain that the essential conditions can l>e satisfied, find not enter blindly into a pact that once accepted would bo binding. This is no more than ordinary prudence, especially in view of the invitation to ‘all parties’ to enter the Government pm lour,

. “The natioual interest may be betrayed rather than advanced by precipitancy. It is not only n question ot a party’s self-respect and its future, Above all there is the future of New (Zealand to be considered, a future that may be made or marred by the policy and guiding principles adopted in these testing times.”

DUNEDIN, April 29

In a leading article the “Otago Daily Times” says: “The wtty is fairly open fior the accomplishment of a fusion that should prove in the highest interest of the country. It is clearly impossible that a minority Government possessing no real power can deal effectively with the proV blems obtruding themselves at present. The responsibility is now cast on Reform of accepting or rejecting the offer. There should be no question about the answer it should make. The time is not one at which there should be any idea of bargaining and haggling nbout terms and conditions and about comparatively small points of policy. There will certainly Be serious disappointment among supporters of Reform if there is not a prompt and unequivocal acceptance of Mr Forbes’s offer. A National Party will be in the position to settle satisfactorily for itself any trifling questions concerning which differences of opinion may have arisen or may vet arise.”