THE SESSION

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24631, 30 July 1945, Page 4

THE SESSION

CHARTER DEBATE INTEREST IN MR ALOIS’S SPEECH (From OUr Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, July 29. The House of Representatives was warming up to the work of the session last week, even though many of the sitting hours were devoted to marking time. Members had another of the usually-rare opportunities to discuss Parliamentary papers, after urgency was taken on Monday night for the Finance Bill, its passage was not proceeded with at that sitting, and extensions of time were given to all who wanted them in the United Nations Charter debate; but at intervals during the week the leisurely attitude of the House was jolted. The highlight of the week was undoubtedly Mr R. M. Algie’s speech on the Charter. Like all of his speeches, it was distinctive for its polish, but it gained by comparison with the ponderous contributions made by some other members. His point of view was apparently shared by few other members, and it was noticeable that he received much less applause from the Opposition benches than Mr Clifton Webb had received, and naturally none at all from the Government benches.. Yet no one denied that he had made his points clearly. The decision of the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser) to delay his reply until Wednesday evening seemed a tacit admission that Mr Algie had said something which called for an effective reply. Most attention in the House centred on his request for a clear statement on New Zealand’s obligations, but he made a worth-while point about the Charter itself when he said there was no total solution of humanity’s problems. He suggested that too frecmently people meant a perfect world when they spoke of a better world and that much of the criticism of the Charter was because the Prime Minister had not been able to bring back a perfect world. His request for information on obligations followed the opinion of Mr P. G. Connolly (Dunedin West) that New Zealand would need a system of compulsory military training. It seemed that Mr Algie wanted this less euphemistically expressed and sought a frank statement whether conscription would be necessary. His search for more detailed knowledge could hardly be satisfied except by the establishment of the standing foreign affairs committee that he suggested. Taken as advocacy of the appointment of such a committee, hi? speech had considerable merit. He critidsed the Prime Minister for not “selling” the Charter to the House, and he left an opening for the Prime Minister to do so in his reply to the debate. The other bright light in the debate was Miss Mabel Howard (Government, Christchurch East), who, as an ardent feminist, took the opportunity to make a characteristic (though impromptu) contribution. She spoke for only 10 minutes and only on the woman’s point of view, but she held the attention of the House. One theme recurred throughout the debate—thg need for understanding with other nations, particularly Russia. .The Minister of Finance (the Hon. W. Nash), in a reference to South American countries, said that the way to lead them towards democracy was to show them that democracy was a better system of government A good point made by Mr J. T. Watts (Opposition, Riccarton) was that ordinary men and women should try to get some understanding of the Charter. The week was also distinguished by the attempt of a private member to get a clause added to the Government’s Finance Bill. There was a certain piquancy in the situation because he was an Opposition member (Mr E. P. Aderman, New Plymouth) and the Opposition, like other Oppositions at other periods, has been critical of Governments including what amount td several small bills in portmanteau measures like the Finance and Statutes Amendment Bills. However, he achieved what he had set out to do when the Prime Minister promised to consider legislation amending the Fair Rents Act in the direction suggested. A sidelight in the House last week was a challenge to a public debate received by Mr W. T. Anderton (Government, Eden) from the Bureau of Importers. During the, discussion on tyre manufacturing Mr Anderton had said “the Bureau of Importers is the most stupid organisation in New Zealand, whose statements, nine times out of 10, are unsound.” The bureau, in its challenge, suggested that its last 10 statements should be the basis for debate, Mr Anderton has accepted the challenge subject to an agreement on conditions, and he has suggested that his statement in the House should be the subject of debate.