WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 27 May 1931, Page 2

WELLINGTON TOPICS

A NATIONAL NEED.

(Special Correspondent).

WELLINGTON, May 25

The Leader of the Opposition must be even lass pleased than is the Prime Minister by the crowning attempt of the Reform Press to make it appear to the public that it is Mr Forbes, who is standing in the way of “fusion” between the two older parliamentary groups. Mr Coates, whatever his minor faults may he, js too good a. sportsman to deliberately misrepresent the intentions or the actions of his political opponents. So much the most scathing of: his critics will admit. It seems, however, that some of his newspaper ffriends have been much less punctilious ‘a'hd have charged Mr Forbes with to-make political capital out "of’; the original offer and by studiously avoiding any reference to the generous,<Jis:ntereßted and> practical counter-: proposals made by the Leader of the Opposition.” The proposal of Prime Minister, it will be remembered. was that lie and - his colleagues should divest themselves of their ministerial rank as speedily as possible and ' that a pew Cabinet similar to the National Cabinet of 1015 should be established forthwith. : > A HOPELESS SCHEME . There oi|n be no Joubt that this proposal .met with approval from a large proportion pf the djeotora of the Dominion who took, a real interest in the pojitioal affairs of the country. The Prime Minister sought no advantage to himself or to his colleagues and he was ready with them to leave the decision to Parliament. H e suspended the nomination of a United candidate for the vacant Hauraki seat in the of Representatives in order thatthere might he no contention between the parties subscribing .to the. compact. This placed.alTthe parties cm the same basis. Even Labour might have come into the compjict had it been so inclined. The “counter proposal” of the Loader of tile Opposition, of course, was hopelesf!. v . Four or ffve members of -jibe Reform p'arty wpfe to constitute an advisory bodv to the United Cabinet; And to ficeepf such-proposals arid hiefipures as they ,'approved! The Reform delegates would have been free to leave the Cabinet table whenever they ! pleased without any regard to the business in hand.

SIXTEEN YEARS AGO. i; There are curious dissemblances as ! well as curious resemblances between the discussion of the National Cabinet of 1915 and the discussion of a National Cabinet to-day. In 1915 ft n>iw Parliament had assembled in Wellington so eyfnly baVneed in tween Reform and Liberal-La'onr that Mr Massey, the loader the -Reform Government lost dp time in inviting Sir Joseph Ward, the leader of the. Qppostjtm, to join him informing a Nat-, ional Cabinet,. which should he. free from all party prejudices and thrmoilß, Mr Maafiey’s • firsit : proposal;was that this Cabinet should consist of - sis Reform members and three our members, but against this-arrange-, ment Sir Joseph Ward stoutly protest, ed and ultimately won his way. Hie striking dissemblance between the party negotionations of these days of those days and' those of the present day is that the Reformers were clamouring for “fusion” while the Liberals and their allies the Labour members would concede nothing but an exiei>sion of the Secret Defence Committee with the Government of the day retaining all constitutional responsibility in regard to policy and administrative asts apart from those connected with tfib war.

the two leaders. exchange of letters between the two leaders at that time make very interesting And entertaining reading; but they are far too lengthy for quota, tion here save for a paragraph or two., “It appears ” wrote Mr Massey to Sr Joseph on July 28, “that you and your, party desire all the power and prestige attaching to a strong Government during a grave war crisis, while at the same time replying upon and expecting the Opposition to accept full responsibility with a minority of m ern beis. in the Cabinet holding portfolios which have no direct connection either with the war or with the financial position of the country.” “You the great sacrifices that would' be imposed upon several .of your colleagues, Sir Joseph wrote on the following day. “Apparently you have overlooked tl)£ fact that I and l those associated with

me would have had to£ make sacrifices • at least as great as those demanded of your colleagues. We were prepared to subordinate ourslves to the welfare of. New Zealand and of the Empire and. I should be sorry to think that you and your colleagues approached the the situation in a less earnest spirit.” And on the following day in good grace and a-mity the National Cabinet was formed.