Comment From The Capital

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28981, 24 August 1959, Page 12

Comment From The Capital

[By Our Parliamentary Reporter]

X WELLINGTON, August 23. Developments in and aronnd Parliament last week have determined the answers to nnmber of questions which have been troubling members.for some weeks. It can now be stated with reasonable certainty: 1. The Prime Minister, Mr Nash, will go to New York and Washington by early October at the latest. ■?2. In spite of Mr Nordmeyer’s statement, “I have therefore told the Prime Minister I think my place should be here at the time,” the last has not been heard of his attending the Finance Ministers’ conference in London late in September. 3. The present session is unlikely to terminate before the end of September. There is a fourth possibility: the session may be adjourned about September 11 to allow both Mr Nordmeyer and Mr Nash to attend their respective conferences. This would mean that the House would meet again later in the year for a short “cleaning up” period. Though there have been no clashes in the House this session on the subject of overseas trips, last week saw a definite stiffening in the attitude of the Opposition. Already this has resulted in a slowing of House tempo. There is a feeling that this “go slow” policy will continue until Mr Nash gives the House an idea of the amount of legislation still to be brought down, as well as an opinion as to how long the session will last. At this stage Government members seem prepared to talk as long and as diffusely as members of the Opposition. Observers find some difficulty in drawing conclusions from this; but it is true that so far no extension of hours has been proposed and no urgency has been taken. It is possible that a lesson was learned last session. Last week’s moves in the Parliamentary chess game began on Tuesday, when the Treasury estimates were before the House. Opposition members, apparently working to a prearranged plan, urged the Minister of Finance to attend the London conference as a matter of prime importance. Mr T. P. Shand (Opposition. Marlborough), who mentioned the imminence of the European Common Market problem, stated the Opposition’s case succintly when he said: “If the choice is between the Prime Minister going to the United Nations and the Minister of Finance going to London there shouldn’t be any choice. It is infinitely more important that the Minister should go to London than that the Prime Minister should go to New York.” If this is the sincere belief not of a single member but of the Opposition, the Opposition would be performing a disservice if it prolonged the session and so prevented Mr Nordmeyer’s departure. Task In London

The official and non-partisan view is that both Mr Nordmeyer and Mr Nash will be required overseas before the end of September on matters of vital Interest to New Zealand. No senior officer who understands the complete picture is prepared to say whether the London task or the New York task is the more important. Most of them are emphatic that New Zealand will be the loser if either position is filled by a man of less authority. At Montreal last year Mr Nordmeyer made a deep impression. He found himself speaking for the smaller nations; and at times was in a position to improve both New Zealand’s international bargaining power and New Zealand's prestige. The information—not from political sources—is that he used his opportunities well, particularly in negotiations with such countries as Western Germany.

This year, as Mr Shand suggested, the problem of the European Common Market is “very nearly on our plate. It’s been on Britain’s plate for some time.” Mr Nordmeyer, as New Zealand's representative at any conference on this issue, would be best qualified to use this country’s influ-

ence wisely, either In New Zealand’s- own interest or on that of the Commonwealth as a whole. • At the moment, European trade is literally “at sixes and sevens.” Six countries have banded together in one group, while another seven are negotiating, with some alarm, to secure for themselves the residue of the European market. The United Kingdom is one of the seven. New Zealand’s best interests would probably be served, in the long run, by a merger of the “six’ 1 * and the “seven,” with the combined market open to Commonwealth trade. In the meantime it must make the best bargain open to it with either group. This might be vital to New Zealand’s prosperity as an international trader. Another important point is for discussion at London is the Commonwealth scholarship scheme, born at Montreal and developed since. New Zealand has an important part in this. More Important?

Opposition speakers chose to place Mr Nordmeyer’s conference ahead of that of Mr Nash in importance. Is this valid? Many prominent politicians, among them Sir Sidney Holland, have reservations about the value of United Nations conferences. To some New Zealanders who have attended them, such conferences are the occasion for flowery speeches cloaking opinions and courses of action which are more obscure.

It is probable, however, that at New York next month there will be discussions about “collective action” in circumstances such as recently occurred in Laos. South-east Asia is now ’Vew Zealand’s accepted sphere, and New Zealand participation in a “brushflre war” which could turn into another Korea is not a subject to be regarded lightly. Possibly even more important is the Z.U.S. Pact conference which is likely to be held in New York or Washington at that time. New Zealand is entitled to top representation at this important link between the policies of the United States, Australia, and New Zealand in mutual defence.

The Washington conference on the future of the Antarctic will follow. This, again, is a matter of prime importance to New Zealand, and to Mr Nash personally, for he has been outspoken in expressing his ideal of keeping Antarctica free of national rivalries and anmaments. What is decided in Washington in midOctober is likely to have a direct bearing on the New Zealand way of life. On his way home Mr Nash is likely to call in on S.E.A.T.O. discussions in Indonesia. These could give him a full schedule until mid-November. Opposition’s Dilemma The Opposition is now in an awkward position. Opposition members have made a strong case for the presence of Mr Nordmeyer in London by the end of September. There has been no Opposition criticism of Mr Nash's intention to go to New York (though much has been said of the absence of other Ministers overseas on comparatively minor errands). By opposing Government measures in the normal way, the National members may be unfairly accused of holding Parliament in session for selfish ends. Even without these charges, they would find it hard to refuse a suggestion that the session be interrupted to allow Messrs Nash and Nordmeyer to attend the conferences. The session’s legislation is almost all in view now. The Crimes Consolidation Bill has yet to come down, with its points of argument including capital punishment. The first of Mr Nordmeyer’s three bills concerning taxation is down, and the second is expected this week. It has been rumoured that the third of these measures is not even drafted yet—but much can happen in a few weeks. The Government might well be tempted to move for an adjournment, ostensibly to have the conferences adequately attended but also to- give time to get some laggard legislation into shape for presentation at the resumption.