CHINA AND THE U.N.

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27149, 19 September 1953, Page 8

CHINA AND THE U.N.

PARLIAMENT

QUESTION ASKED IN HOUSE STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER (New Zealand t'ress Association) WELLINGTON. September 18. The Prime Minister <Mr Holland), seexing tne leave of - the House of Representatives this morning to make a statement in reply to a Question asked of him by Mr Clyde Carr (Opposition, Timaru), warmly denied the assertion that New Zealand would follow the United States •'right or wrong.” Mr Speaker (Sir Matthew Oram) said the question was out of order. Mr Carr’s notice of question asked “Whether, in view of the changed attitude of the Minister of External Affairs towards the admission of the Peking Government to the United Nations, he would inform the House and the country whether that was dictated by the Prime Minister’s declared policy of following America right or wrong. In a note to the question. Mr Carr said that both in the House and out of it the Minister of External Affairs (Mr T. C. Webb) had said he favoured the admission of Communist China to the United Nations, blit at the recent Anzus talks he sided with the United States and Australia in opposing it. After Mr Carr had asked his question. Mr Holland said it contained a statement which, if allowed to pass unnoticed. could be quite damaging. , What he took exception to was the -assertion that it was the declared policy to follow the United States right or wrong. ' Mr Holland said the question had already gone out over the air. and if the statement it contained was not corrected it might do the country very great injury. Any statement that New Zealand would follow the United States was a serious one to make. Mr Carr said the statement had appeared in newspapers and the Prime Minister had never attempted to deny -it

Government members: Yes. he has. Intervening. Mr Speaker said he thought the Prime Minister should be given the leave he sought and after a little further discussion Mr Holland said the important thing was the context in which the words “follow America right or wrong” were used. He did not remember the exact circumstances to which the Member for Timaru referred, but he thought they had to do with some aspect of the Korean war when the question arose whether United Nations forces under United States leadership should make a certain advance. “Unfair and Unjust Situation”

7 “But to take the words from their context and use them in a different light creates an entirely unfair and unjust situation,” said the Prime Minister. . “America has no control over this country and it would be wrong lor anyone to say that I have given an undertaking that New Zealand will follow the United States right or wrong.” At this point. Mr R. Macdonald (Opposition, Ponsonby) interrupting Mr Holland, referred to the latter’s recent visit to Washington and to subsequent references that he (Mr Holland) had been “the Voice of America.” Mr Holland said that when he was in Washington he was asked by President Eisenhower to convey a message of goodwill to the United Kingdom. Then a newspaper came out with the jibe that he was “the Voice of America.” That did not worry him —it was only a cheap political jibe. He was no more the Voice of "America than the member for Ponaenby. '"Mr Carr: It was not greetings at that time. It was policy, and not greetings. ** Question by Mr Nash The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nash) then asked Mr Speaker whether “the Prime Minister’s statement constituted the answer to the question and whether it would go on the Order Paper in the normal way. - The Minister of Defence (Mr T. L. "Macdonald) objected to the Leader of the Opposition’s insinuating that he did not trust the Prime Minister. Mr Nash denied that he had any in"fention of suggesting that the Prime Minister might give a different writAen answer to the question. What he wanted was that the points made in the statement would be contained in the written reply. Mr S. I. Jones (Government, Hastings): They will be. Mr Nash said that what he was con- . cerned about was that the Prime Minister would make a short answer after a long speech. He did not question the Prime Minister’s integrity or that he (.Mr Holland) would give a different answer. Mr Holland: I haven’t answered the -question at all. The question concerns the admission of Peking to the United -Nations. Mr Carr: The Prime Minister has answered the question by denying the statement. The House then passed on to the Budget debate.

TIME DEVOTED TO BUDGET DEBATE MR FREER’S CRITICISM (New Zealand. Press Association) WELLINGTON, September 18. In the New Zealand Parliament the tendency was to devote more time to the Budget debate than was strictly necessary in the interests of the country, said Mr W. W. Freer (Opposition, Mount Albert) in the House of Representatives today. The business community in particular was interested in the legislative programme the Government intended to bring down so it could determine what the chances were of securing future stability, Mr Freer said. At no stage in the Budget debate could members influence any of the points in the annual financial statement, said Mr Freer. It would be in the best interests of the community to restrict the length of time devoted to the Budget debate, so that at the earliest possible time the Government’s legislative programme could be put into effect Mr Freer said he thought that had the debate collapsed earlier than anticipated the Government would have been embarrassed, but delaying the end of the debate only meant delay to the legislative programme. The Minister of Lands (Mr E. B. Corbett): Why not assist by resuming your seat? Mr Freer: I am going to do just that. Mr Freer said that the House of Commons devoted three days or four at the most to its Budget debate, while in New Zealand the debate was spread over four weeks. In Australia there was a limit of eight days, in South Africa seven to eight days, and in Canada a maximum of 11 to 12 sitting

days. The Prime Minister (Mr Holland): Are you in favour of curtailing the rights of members to speak in the Budget debate? Mr Freer: I would be the last to want to curtail members’ rights, but is completely unnecessary for members to rise and speak for an hour whether they have the material or nothing at all. .. Mr Freer limited his Budget speech to 35 minutes.

PARLIAMENTARY DAY

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON. September 18. Another four members of the House Of Representtives took part in the Budget debate today. Three bills—the Land Subdivision in Counties Amendment Bill, which coordinates the provisions of the principal bill with the Town and Country /Planning Bill; the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Amendment Bill, a minor measure; and the Fisheries

Amendment Bill, which makes minor and miscellaneous amendments —were passed. The House rose at 4.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, when the Budget debate will be continued. It is expected that in the evening the Prime Minister (Mr Holland) will end the debate.