THE COALITION PROPOSAL

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 3994, 29 July 1915, Page 5

THE COALITION PROPOSAL

HISTORY O'F THE NEGOTIATIONS. GOVERNMENT OFFER SIX TO TO FIVE BASIS. REFORM MINISTERS TO lIOLJ> PREAI lElbSllll*, I'jNANOE AND DEFENCE. OPPOSITION DECLINE THE OFFER. (Press Association Telegram.) WE LINO TON, this day. Tile following correspondence, winch passed between the Premier and Hie Loader of the Opposition, on the subject of the National Cabinet, has been handed to the press lor publication : Prime Minister's Office, Wellington. . 27th July, PILL Dear Sir Joseph.— Referring to our conversation ot yesterday and to the proposal to form a National Government to carry on the business of the country until the termination of the war, J have decided, on behalf of the Government party, to submit the following proposals lor your consideration ; (I) The proportion from each sale of the House in Hie National Ministry to be as follows: From the Government side, six members, including the member of the Executive representing the Natives, who will bold Cabinet raulc. From the (jppositiou side, live members. (-) -Myself to be Prime Minister ami also to lake Hie portfolio of Defence, and the Hon. Mr Allen to hold the portfolio of Finance. (J) AYe cannot see our way to accept your suggestion that there should lie live members from each ; side without tlm Prime Minister I possessing a casting vote or with- j out the representative of tile Native race being allowed to exercise j a vote. j (t) 'I here are several details] "'hidi it is unne :es,.,arv to men- j Hoe at present, but. hi the event j ol a by-e!e; tion during the period j ol the National Guv< rnmont. Dm] practice followed in Britain should i be followed in X* -w Zealand —viz.. ' that the va-anl seat should go to j a. represent alive .v.-li*t-led !;v the ' party to whieji Hu- former mem- ; her belonged ami Hint both par-1 ties should join in supporting Hu candidate so selected. i am. vours vi.nvre!v. (Signed) AY. f. I. ASSET j Lender of Hie Oppo.siiion's Office. ] Wellington, ; July 28. Ibid. i Dear Mr Massev— !

I beg to acknowledge receipt of vo-ur letter of tile 27th in.st. which I received after the House ruse last night. Regarding your proposals for the formation of a National Cabinet to carry on the business ot the country until the termination of the war, permit me to remind you that your lirst proposal to me was that a National Cabinet should lie funne l in the following propori ions:

From the Government party, six: from the Opposition party, three. This proposal I submitted to a meeting of the Opposition party held on July Oth, and it was rejected as an unfair proposal, seeing tlie~ parties in the Home wen- practically equal in numbers. 1 was authorised to .submit to you an alternative proposal, which was unanimously agreed to. the full resolution of the caucus, which was duly handed to you, being as follows: "That Afr Massey be informed that the Opposition considers his offer of constituting a National Cabinet with six Government members and three Opposition members unfair, seeing the Opposition is practically equal to the Government party in point of numbers. The Opposition is desirous of assisting the Government in war matters and. as an alternative to Air Massey's proposal suggests that such assistance could Ho better rendered if the powers ot the Secret Defence Committee were extended during the war and, in connection therewith, to enable the administration, to more effectually deal with the present crisis. The Opposition party were of the opinion that the extension of the powers and functions of the Secret Defence Committee so as to cover administration would meet the position, leaving the Government of the day in possession of its full constitutional responsibilities as regards policy and administrative acts apart from those connected with the war.

After consideration of this proposal your next suggestion to me was a National Cabinet fixed upon the basis of five Government members to four Opposition members, the representative of the Maori race, in addition, remaining a member of the Executive.

A meeting, of the Opposition party was duly convened by me and held on July 21st, the result being the adoption of the following resolution. “That the Opposition, while desirous of rendering every possible assistance in connection with the war, as is evidenced by the facilities extended to the Government for the passage of their legislation, finds that, some of the difficulties in the way of the formation of a National Cabinet, which presented themselves when the question was last considered, have been accentuated since that time. We believe the best interests til’ the Dominion can be served by the Government giving effect to onr previous suggestion—namely that they should call to their assistance (without Ministerial status) the services of the five Opposition members of the Secret Defence Committee, who are desirous aiul willing, cm behalf of the Opposition, to help in Defence administration' in any way in which thou services may be available.” This resolution I handed to you and your letter of the 27th inst., which I am now reviewing, is the answer. . . Your latest proposal, contained m the letter to which I am now referring, sets out that a National Cabinet should comprise six members from the Government party and five from the Opposition party, and tins proposal is also open to most serious objections. in our conversations i indie-ted to von that the proposed National Cabinet, if constituted, should be for the currency of the war ami for war purposes only, awl that all contentious legislation should he avoided, with the exception that I suggested t-lie passing of legislation this session to deal with the cost of living and legislation dealing with anomalies that exist in the Legislative Council Act, DM, in rosard to its operation attu January next. The elimination ot all contentious legislation with Mu two exceptions to which 1 have referred, would make the Cabinet fo the time being non-party, f™ ' 1 would be able to devote itbeH umtodlv to the country’s sole uiteiests from a war and financial standpoint It mast not be forgotten that most, important taxation proposals are imminent—taxation rendered necessary by the war and, peiisions expenditure, and also onnw to tho serious condition of ihe nn juices of the Dominion. therefore it is impossible for the Opposition to commit themselves to . the proposal for a National Cabinet with a pre-existent majority on the Government side. This majority of one could insist upon taxation proposals which might be at variance with principles and pledges which tno Opposition hold and had given the country. On the other hftTKivuf ft National Cabinet with 'equal representation and equal responsibilities were established for war and financial purposes to hold office during

the currency of the war, taxation proposals would be considered and dealt with by a non-party Cabinet consisting of an equal number from each side of the House. This would ensure practical unanimity in regard to taxation proposals, as the equal division would enforce the need of concession on each side. Thus, the possibility of deadlocks would be avoided and the best and truest interests of the country would be upheld during this time of unprecedented crisis. In my opinion shell a Cabinet would be a step or tlio very greatest importance. it. would bo the strongest course for either political party to adopt, not only in the interests of New Zealand, but in the interests of the Empire. I liohl that neither party should, under a National Cabinet, be in a position to dominate the other in matters arising out of and eon lie., tori with the war, but that the Cabinet .should be so constituted that its members would unitedly support each other. In conversation 1 pointed out to you that it would bo practically certain, were the minority defeated in Cabinet On any important question such, as war taxation they would be compelled to leave the Cabinet, and a condition even worse than now exists would be set nil. 1 cannot place myseli or ask' those associated with me to place themselves iu a position which may lead to such a state of affairs.

With reference to paragraph J of you r letter, you may remember that 1 pointed out to you it would be necessary, with a National Cabinet, that there should be no contests for by-elections and that, if a vacancy occurred in the ranks of any of the partio,-, the nominee of the particular party concerned should receive the uniter! support" of the other P ■r’ Sir. k a condition is natura!!v c.-,.ostia! to anything in the shape of a National Cabinet. fdo not wish to discuss at this point all the clauses of your letter in detail.

Regarding clause 2, however, which stipulates that you are to be Prime Minister and hold the portfolio of Defence, a i;d that the lion. Afr All cn i.s to hold the portfolio of .Final!.' e, f wish to say that J am not desirous of having a seat in a National Cabinet, and I so expressed myself la you. Recognising tie gravity of the si l nation, 1 was prepan si to subordinate mr personal inclination arid to agree to you being Prime Alini.-cer. conditional on niy retirement after the conclusion of the war. but to seriously •suggest a National Cabinet and then make the stipulations contained in vour letter ns to the two r.ortfoiios mentioned, iio;k“ it appear as if your party, desire t > take all Hie power and me.stige. As to making a strong Cabinet during a grave war crisis, while at the same time reiving on and expecting the Opposition to accept full responsibility with a minority of members in the Cabinet holding portfolios which have no direct connection either vmh the war or the financial position of the country. In plain terms, if the Government party retain the Prime Ministership and also tee important folios of Finance and Defence, it is difficult to see why the assistance of j the Opposition is asked in a Na- ; tional Cabinet during the war and j for war purposes. I remain. Yours sincerely.

(.Signed .> J. G. AAARD. Following is the reply sent by the Premier to the Leader oi the Oppsitien to-night: July. 28. IP 15. Dear Sir Joseph.— Replving to yrur letter of to--3 ay's date and referring to the subject of a National Cabinet. I think you will admit that I have been honestly anxious to arrange for a strong Government to carry on the business of the country during the war period and to enable New Zealand to do its duty in assisting the Empire during a time of crisis. I nforiunately, difficulties have arisen which neither you nor T have been able to overcome. You refer to rny first proposal ol six Government members and three Opposition members in a Cabinet ot nine as being unfair, but, so iar as 1 can recollect, up to that time no substantial Lx-dy of public opinion .bad suggested a larger proportion and it. "should be remembered that, this proposal meant asking several of my colleagues to make great sacrifice's—it. meant asking them to retire from honorable positions and t-o separate front the comrades with whom thee had worked for many years. I must say. however. that each and every Minister expressed himself as willing to place his resignation in my hands and abide loyally by my decision. You next suggest that the Opposition is practically equal to the Government party in point iof numbers. The relative strength of parties is 41 to Ah but it seems to me there is another wav of looking at this matter and it is this: That if the members of a National Cabinet chosen from both sides are to he in proportion to the number of members behind them, tliey should be in proportion to the number of members upon the Government side or upon the Opposition side who would actually support the now administration This I did not even propose, because, from what 1 was given to understand, I felt certain that there was a very large proportion of the Opposition members who would not. under any circumstances, consent to support a National Government, hut I certainly did suggest a proportion of live to four as a way out of the difficulty. This, you and your party decided that you could not accept. Negotiations, however, still continued and T think I am right iu saying that the next suggestion came from yourself. It was that there should be an equal number of European members on each side and that I. as Prime Minister, should possess a deliberative and a easting vote. This f accepted upon the understanding that the member of the Executive representing the native race should be requested not to exercise a vote except on matters directly affecting his people. At this time matters looked favorable for the formation of a National Cabinet, hut when we met again you withdrew this offer and I put forward the six to five proposal, the six numbers of Cabinet, to include the Hon. Dr. Pomare. who is not at present actually a member of the Cabinet, hut who is a member of the Executive Council. 'Phis arangement, if it had been agreed to, would .have Avon the Opposition five European representatives in the Lower House. The Government would have had four European representatives in that Chamber and the Hon. Dr. Pomare, the leader of the Legislative Council retaining the position which he now occupies. I was prepared to stand by this proposal and there were hopes that matters might have been satisfactorily arranged on this basis. Regarding your suggestion that a non-party Cabinet consisting of an equal number from each side of the House would make deadlocks impossible, T regret that I am unable to concur in the view that you have expressed . It seems to me that in a cabinet of five and five, as a result of its very composition, deadlocks would constantly arise inasmuch as upon every question upon which there was an equal division no effective decision could bo arrived at. Further, your proposal meant placing your party in precisely tho 1 same position as'the Government party, which is in the majority, and, whilst I am anxious to avoid all party conflict at present, and desire, if possible, to secure your co-operation, I consider that in any arrangement Tome to the Government of the day is entitled to enjoy at any rate nominally a. preponclerancs of power.

I agree with you that all contentious legislation should he avoided during the war period, and there would he no difficulty on my part so far as that condition was concerned. But there is one suggestion in your letter which, 1 think, should not have been made and which is contained in the following extract:— “To seriously suggest a national Cabinet and then make the stipulations contained in your letter as to the two portfolios mentioned (defence and finance) makes it appear that you and your party desire all the power - anti prestige attaching to a strong Government during a grave war crisis, while at the same time relying upon and expecting the opposition to accept full responsibility with a minority of members in the Cabinet, holding portfolios v/Jiich have no direct connection either with the war or the financial position of the country.” When national governments have been formed in other countries;—in Britain for instance—the leader of the Government in power held the position of Rriine Minister and the portfolios have been allocated by him probably after consul Cation which his colleagues, but in this country - the portfolios of Defence and Finance are not by any means the only ones of importance. As a matter of fact, the legislature has indicated, by giving a salary of £3OO per annum more to the Minister of Railj ways than to other Ministers except. ] the Prime Minister, that ic regards j tin* portfolio of railways as next lit j importance ard more important than | the portfolios of Defence and Fi- | nance. Th.-re are a number of other important portfolios, as you know, such as Post and Telegraphs, Lands. Rubin* Health. Education, Agrieul- ; tun*. Labor. Public Works, etc. 1 might remind you also that when the British National Government was formed only a short time ago the proportion of members of the different parties was twelve Government and nine Opposition, including one for Labor, but net ] counting the Secretary of State- for War, who belongs to neither party and is admittedly not a politician. * I observe that in on© place you refer to what you call the “serious coudiiioii os the* finances of the Dominion.” fam bapoy to be able to .>t:d.e that, apart from the war expenditure and the general effect <>f the war, the financial position of the country was never more satisfactory. As I have made a sincere attempt to provide against a serious difficulty during a critical period, I have don© what i believed to be my plain duty to the Empire and the country and, although mv efforts have failed, it is con.sol mg to rae to know that 1 have been supported in a mom generous and loyal spirit by my colleagues and by the members of my party. Whether rny actions Lav© been right or whether they Lave* been wrong, the people of the country must judge. ! remain. Yours sincerely. (Signed), in reply to the letter received by Sir Joseph Ward from the Prime Minister. dated July 28. and which was received by the Leader of the Deposition at midnight, Sir Joseph Ward La* sent a reply, but it is too late to get it on the wires to-night.