PROPOSED PACT.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 July 1922, Page 5

PROPOSED PACT.

LIBERALS AND LABOR. NEGOTIATIONS REVEALED. LABOR BECAME OFFENDED. CALLED UNPLEASANT NAMES. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. In the House of Representatives, this afternoon, Mr. H. Holland (Leader of the Labor Party) asked leave of the House for the purpose of making his promised statement on the subject of the suggested arrangement between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. Mr. Holland said that when speaking to his amendment on the Address-in-Reply he stated that up to a week ago the Liberals were willing to hold office with the support of the Labor Party for the purpose of getting proportional representation put on the Statute Book, and that was the only point in dispute. Proposals to this end began with the Proportional Representation League in February last, when Messrs. Fowlds and O’Regan waited on the Parliamentary Labor Party and suggested an arrangement under which Liberal and Labor candidates would not contest seats against each other, so that men pledged to proportional representation might be elected. The answer of the Labor Party was that the question could be determined only by the annual conference. He (Mr. Holland) favored the idea if an early conference could not be called, but thought it impossible adequately to discuss it at Auckland. The Proportional Representation League were perfectly open and candid in the presentation of their case, but what the Labor Party objected to was that while Liberals were openly flouting Labor they were at the same time prepared to come to a secret agreement with them.

TO PREVENT VOTE-SPLITTING. The first letter he read was from Mr. Maddison, secretary of the Radical Labor Party, in which he represented that Mr. T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition) was favorable to an arrangement as suggested by Messrs. Fowlds and O’Regan, to prevent vote-splitting. Mr. Wilford’s reply to this would be that he wired to Mr. Maddison repudiating the use of his name, but he (Mr. Holland) suggested that was purely an afterthought. The next letter read was one from '..h\ Thorn, editor of the Maoriland V/orker, outlining a similar arrangement to prevent vote-split ting, which Mr. Thorn said was put before him by two gentlemen on Mr Wilford’s behalf. These gentlemen sug gested Mr. Thorn and Mr. Wilford should meet and. discuss the matter. Mr. Thorn declined to meet Mr. Wilford, because he afterwards heard he had changed his ground, and instead of holding office only until proportional representation became law, he wished to hold office for the whole period of Parliament. Mr. Thorn wrote and told Mr. Wilford that he had better submit his proposals to the Labor conference. The same gentlemen interviewed him (Mr. Holland) at Westport and made similar representations. Proceeding, Mr. Holland detailed what took place at the annual Labor conference, stating that Messrs. Fowlds and O’Regan waited on the conference and gave addresses urging an arrangement between the Liberal and Labor Parties for the purpose of preventing vote-splitting at the next election, and in reply to questions thsy stated Mr. Wilford favored the idea. The matter, he said, would have no importance had not the Liberals stated they would not hold office with the assistance of the Labor Party. They were facing both ways, and the Labor Party was justly entitled to call attention to the fact. Mr. Holland said that while the Labor conference was listening to Messrs. Fowlds and O’Regan speaking with Mr. Wilford’s sanction, he (Mr. Wilford) was denying he would ever have anything to do with the Labor Party. He was running with the hare and hunting with the hounds The Liberals were willing to occupy the Ministerial benches with the aid of Labor votes, while calling Labor Red Feds, Bolshies, and applying similar epithets. Labor could honor fair opponents, but could not tolerate men fair to face and false behind their backs.

MR. WILFORD’S DENIALS. Mr. Wilford said he had been taken by surprise. Up to ten minutes ago he did not know the nature of the charges to be made against him. That was not fair, but he was prepared to answer them right away. Most of Mr. Holland’s evidence was merely hearsay; there was nothing direct, while Mr. Holland had also shifted his ground. In his original charge he stated “less than a week ago” the Liberals were willing to hold office with the aid of the Labor Party, and now he said “until quite' recently.” Mr. Wilford admitted meeting the executive of the Radical Labor Party, of which Mr. Maddison was secretary, and who urged him to adopt certain means to prevent vote-splitting. He read a report of that conference based on shorthand notes made at the time. From this it appeared that Mr. Wilford told his interviewers that he favored proportional representation with the retention of the country quota, but would not discuss the matter with Mr. Holland’s party. He promised to submit the representations of tho deputation to his executive and give them a reply when he spoke at Oamaru on March 21st. He had not seen his executive, and had not given the deputation a reply.

While in Oamaru he received a circular from Mr. Maddison, to which he replied by telegram that Mr. Maddison had no authority to use his name in the way it was used in the circular. He read a letter from Mr. Maddison stating that the circular quoted by Mr. Holland was not circulated and since had been destroyed. He (Mr. Wilford) was not in any way responsible for it; it was simply an effort of an over-zealous man. That was his reply to the Maddison charge. Coming to the Thorn letter, he said he did not know Thorn, he had never seen him, and he had never met him. He had never discussed this matter of the co-op-eration of parties with any member of the Labor Party. Mr. Thorn wrote him refusing to keep an appointment which he (Mr. Wilford) never made. He was not responsible for what some two men told Mr. Thorn. Mr. Holland: They said the same thing to me. “EXTREMELY ANXIOUS.” Mr. Wilford: “I am not responsible for that either.” After the issue of the Maddison circular he was extremely anxious about the whole matter. He had been spoken to about preventing vote-splitting from the North Cape to the Bluff, and he had the greatest difficulty in avoiding falling into traps. He therefore called his

executive together and put the position before them. They instantly turned down any proposal to work with the Labor Party. He was not satisfied, and he called a meeting of the party, with similar result. He admitted discussing the question of electoral reform with Mr. Fowlds, but whan his party turned down the proposal to work with the Labor Party he told Mr. Fowlds frankly what happened, and Mr. Fowlds was in the House that afternoon and could confirm what he said.

He personally had favored the idea of the two parties working together to secure electoral reform, but his party never had, and it was because Mr. Holland had dragged the party into the matter that he had repudiated Mr. Holland’s charge? Mr. Fowlds had told the Labor conference at Auckland that Mr. Wilford was ready for such an arrangement, but the party as a whole was not. He knew nothing of the suggestion that he wanted to hold office for two or three years, but he did know that the demand for the prevention of vote-splitting was so great from end to end of the country that he believed it would come without any agreement. He had been most anxious to do something to prevent vote-splitting, and he hoped it would come off in spite of what had been said.