MR BARNARD’S LETTER

Wairarapa Times-Age, 8 April 1940, Page 5

MR BARNARD’S LETTER

REASONS FOR RESIGNING . FINANCIAL AND WAR POLICY: MACHINE DESTROYING SOUL OF MOVEMENT. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) HASTINGS, April. 7. The resign tit ion. from the New Zealand Labour Party of the Hon \V. E. Barnard, Labour M.P. for Napier, is conveyed in a letter written by him to the Prime .Minister, Air Fraser.

Mr. Barnard, who is Speaker of the House of Representatives, states that Mr, Fraser does not possess his confidence, nor does Mr. Nash as Minister of Finance. At last week’s caucus of the Parliamentary Labour Party, at which Mr. Fraser was elected leader of the party, Mr. Barnard nominated Mi - . C. L. Carr, M.P. for Timaru, as a candidate for the leadership. The full text of Mr. Barnard's letter is as follows: — •'You will recall that at the Easter conference I urged that, what was needed to restore the unity of the party was the restoration of democratic control to the Parlamentary caucus. I pleaded that the question should be settled then by the conference Others did the same. It was not allowed. We were told that it was a red herring. At the recent • caucus I repeated twice that the immediate adoption of democratic methods was essential to party solidarity and success and supported my conviction by my vote. Others supported this view, but unhappily I found myself voting alone. I was in a minority of one. Nor did 1 vote confidence In you as Leader, for you do not possess my confidence. I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that under your leadership the Parliamentary party will not be able to exercise its democratoic rights, just as I feel that there will be tio taking over of the Bank of New Zealand while Mr. Nash is Minister of Finance. Side by side with this refusal to caucus of its rights I view with alarm the growing political domination of some five or six powerful industrial chiefs, who I am satisfied are not representative of the rank and file of the workers. It is a very few years ago that all the Labour members of Parliament were rallied to check the pretensions of these same gentlement. Today —witness the recent Easter conference —you and the Cabinet are in close alliance with them, another nail in the coffin of the democracy of the Labour Party. The confirmation in office of the present Cabinet till the end of the year means that the financial policy of the party (on the basis of which we were all returned to Parliament in 1935 and in 1938) will still remain unfulfilled. I am convinced that unless and until that policy is fully implemented -this country, already in chains, will pass into deeper bondage. The orthodox money system cannot sustain the burden of a long and a costly war. except at the. price of loading the people of this country with a crushing and intolerable weight of debt. To this course I cannot agree. The immediate obstacle to the taking over of the Bank of New Zealand, which has more than once been affirmed by a majority of caucus, and the.| monetary reform, is the Minister of Finance, who continues in office. I have no confidence in Mr. Nash in that capacity. ‘I also find myself at variance with you in your handling of the war situation. When. Great Britain is at war we are at war, but we are entitled to fuller assurances from the British Government than the bald statement that Hitler must be defeated. As I stated publicly on February 7 last, "victory is necessary - —we won in 1918 —but what happened then is at least three ’“'or four times as important to us and the next generation or two as the victory itself. . . . Full and explicit reasons should be given in the Press and over the air so that the ’common people,’ upon whom everywhere the major burden falls, may not be fooled a second time.” You apparently held some such view 20-odd years ago. Moreover, Cabinet has no right to

commit this country to growing supplies of soldiers for overseas service without consulting Parliament or even the party caucus. The Defence Council, of which I am a member, was never fully consulted over New Zealand's commitments. It has not been consulted at all during the past four months because it has not met since the first week in December. The Minister of Defence gave the show completely away when he said (“Evening Post,” February 13, 1940) “that the progress of recruiting had been handicapped because it was not till December that the Government had known that a division was to be sent overseas.” Apparently Mr. Chamberlain calls the tune and we are to dance to it. As a native-born New Zealander and a representative of New Zealand Labour, I object to this servility. New Zealand is a selfgoverning Dominion and not a Crown colony. We have no returned soldiers in the Cabinet. I am not satisfied with the Cabinet in which the men who fought in the last war have no representation. One man who could have inspired and directed the country in its war effort has just been cunningly ejected from lhe Labour Party. This war is a continuatori of the war of 1914-18, and the men who served then have no penance to do in the present crisis. The returned soldiers in the ParLiarnen-

tary Labour Party have been ignored during recent montlis. There is much more 1 might say and will say at a later stage. 1 deeply i egret the necessity for taking up this uncompromising stand, but feel conscientiously compelled to do it. I acn no longer remain dum'o or curbed when I see the principles and policy of the party, which I have served for 17 years, being either thrown on one side or whittled away. There is a price to be paid for freedom, and I have counted the cost. In doing so I have been encouraged by the statement of a dislanguished fell ow-coun try man of yours —a man whose life has been an inspiration to the Labour movement throughout the world, though he has been dead 25 years. I refer to Keir Hardie, who, on his fiftieth birthday, declared: ‘‘Looking back over the way I have come, I can honestly say I have never had reason to regret following the steep straight path of duty, and I may add I have never yielded to temptation to try the apparently easier way without having cause to rue it.” 1 shall continue to work for the Labour movement —to realise its ideals and aims—but I decline to do so any longer as a cog in a machine which is rapidly destroying the soul of the movement. I am bound to prefer principles to persons To act otherwise is to follow the Nazi method, which seems to be creeping into New Zealand political life. You will correctly understand this letter to mean that I hereby voluntarily resign for the present from the official Nev; Zealand Labour Party. In view of the importance of this statement to my constituents, and its interest-to the public generally, lam handing a copy of it to the Press.

letter not yet received PRIME MINISTER WITHHOLDS COMMENT. WELLINGTON, This Day. When asked last night if he were prepared to comment on Mr. Barnard s letter, the Prime. Minister, Mr. Fraser, said he had not received the letter, and in the circumstances had no comment to make.

SPEAKER’S TENURE ONLY REMOVABLE BY ACT OF PARLIAMENT. WELLINGTON. This Day. With the resignation of the Hon W. E. Barnard from the Labour Party interest attaches to his position as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Mi - Barnard was elected Speaker when Parliament mot in session for the first time after the Labour Government came into power, and he was reappointed to that oft ice in the present Parliament. A Speaker is appointed for a whole Parliament - !, and not for a session only. His term expires when Parliament is dissolved and not before, though the salary continues till a successor is appointed. A Speaker is really an officer of 'the House and as such is independent of party politics. Actually, the only way a Speaker could forcibly be removed from office before the expiry of his term would be by legislation. Of course, the House could carry a vote of no-confidence in a Speaker, but even then he could not be made to vacate office, though in practice he would probably do so. for his position would be made untenable.