PARLIAMENT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 3 December 1927, Page 5

PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO-DAY'S SITTING. IMPERIAL CONFERENCE REPORT. fl’er Press Association). Parliament Bldgs, Dec. 3. The House of Representatives met at 10 a.m., when the Prime Minister read a lengthy statement covering the proceedings at the Imperial Conference. The Leader of the Opposition protested against such an important statement being brought down so late in the session when it was quite impossible adequately to discuss it. He hoped the time would come when these conferences would no longer be the meeting of the dominant parties in the various countries of the Empire, but when other parties also would be represented. He asked whether it was not a fact, that the decisions could not come into effect until they had been approved by Parliament by a definite decision; if so what was being done about the alteration in the Governor-General's status. If that had been altered it could have no legal effect, until the alteration was notified by Parliament. So far as the status of the dominions was concerned he could not see much alteration. Britain still held control over the legislation of the dominions, and Lord Balfour seemed to write reports of conferences in much the same way as Sir Francis Bell wrote the GovernorGeneral’s speeches in New Zealand. Mr. Holland commented upon the absence of reference to the Locarno Pact in tho report of the conference, and urged that all such conferences should be open to the press, as secrecy in such matters did not inspire confidence. DIT FERENT INTERPRETATIONS. The Hon. Downie Stewart said the resolutions agreed to by the conference were the logical outcome of the historical development of the Empire, but every country in the Empire would interpret those resolutions according to the stage of development it had reached. For instance. Canada, with a great friendly country like the United States on her border, would take a different view of defence from that we who are out in the unprotected Pacific would take. Thus each Dominion would interpret tho resolutions from its own point of view, but the genius of the British race was such that although apparently acting independently we were still able to preserve unity of purpose. In rhe event of the Kin? declaring war im thought each Dominion had the right to stay outside that war if it thought desirable, but that wonl ’ not protect • hat Dominion from attack, and he thought the power of the race and tradition would draw everv part <f the Empire into any just conflict. THE TERM “EMPIRE." Mr. G. W Forbes (Hurunui) said it was ridiculous to suggest that the term “Empire’’ should lie altered to “Commonwealth of Nations.” Few people proud ot their British nationality desired such a change. He had never heard it raised at any general election. Personally, he was in accord with what the Prime Minister had done at the Imperial Conference. Sir John Luke (Wellington North) said the United Kingdom was the keystone of the whole super-structure of the British Empire. No system stood higher, in point of reliability than that of loyalty to the Crown which held the Empire together. He had been particularly pleased to see Air. Coates’s work at the Imperial Conference highly praised. Mr. Mason (Eden) said that according to the report officials were going to establish themselces at each end of the earth and usurp what was regarded as the last stronghold held by Ministers of the Crown. Imperial affairs were passing into the hands of officials, and Ministers seemingly counted for nothing. “MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG.” Mr. Wilford said he had sat in the House of 28 years and had never known the Labour party to stand up for the Empire, but he did not believe the people of New Zealand supported the Opposition leader’s views. Mr. Wilford said his principle was, “My country right or wrong.” It was grong to suggest that direct communications between governments would disrupt the Empire. Such system was superior to former methods of communication through Downing Street. Mr. Howard accused Mr, Wilford of dealing with the question from a purely party point of view, in that his speech was in contrast to that delivered by the Leader of the Opposition. The discussion was proceeding when the House adjourned at 1 p.m. till 2.30 p.m.