The Press THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1958. Speech From The Throne

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28492, 23 January 1958, Page 10

The Press THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1958. Speech From The Throne

Seldom can a Speech from the Throne at tlje opening of a New Zealand Parliamentary session have been briefer than that delivered by the GovernorGeneral (Viscount Cobham) yesterday. That was because his advisers in the Government had wisely decided to confine the business of this brief meeting to their tax legislation, which must be passed within a fortnight. This legislation is the only business forecast in the speech, which, however, usefully recorded the

Government's adherence in general to the foreign poncy of its predecessor. Though the Prime Minister (Mr Nash) had already made the position clear, its formal reaffirmation in his Excellency’s speech was proper Some of the Government backbenchers may not have altogether relished the reference to British-American co-operation: but the point was well made. His Excellency also took the opportunity to refer briefly to the pleasure with which New Zealand is anticipating the arrival cf the Queen Mother and to mention the

satisfaction felt at Mr Macmillan’s visit On these points, at least the Governor-General could be sure that all sides of the House shared the feelings of his Ministers.

The brevity of the speech does not necessarily mean that the debate on the House's reply to it should be as terse as the Prime - Minister wishes. His

Excellency was not advised on this occasion to make any reference to New Zealand’s financial difficulties; but the House is certainly aware of them and their implications, including the import control policy. Mr Nash can expect some co-operation in the passage of his tax bill so recently endorsed by the electorate; but he cannot expect the Opposition to leave all major issues for discuss'on at his convenience some months hence. Indeed, it is the duty of the Opposition to examine at the earliest opportunity ’he important events of the last few weeks. This need not mean an unduly protracted debate on the Address-in-Reply; it may be possible to confine it to the two days offered by Mr Nash. No purpose is served by unnecessary repetition; but the Opposition is entitled to enough time to make a reasoned criticism of the Government, and the Government to enough time to make its reply. The scope for the debate ’s as unusually large as the time for it is unusually restricted. The Labour Party brought this trouble on itself with a policy that was administratively difficult as well as financially irresponsible. Mr Nash must now rely on the courtesy of the Opposition to get him out of his Parliamentary tangle. Unfortunately the Opposition, with the best will in the world, could not do the same for him in his financial troubles.