Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1930. PARLIAMENT AND THE EMPIRE

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 38, 13 August 1930, Page 10

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1930. PARLIAMENT AND THE EMPIRE

While the Prime Minister's statement on the Imperial Conference agenda was agreeably disappointing in its breadth of outlook and its sense of responsibility, and holds out the hope of a further development along the same lines bpfore he is called, upon to speak for us at the Conference table, the House of Representatives may also be congratulated upon the quality of the debate which followed. The most notable contribution came, as was fitting, from the Leader of the Opposition, who represented the Dominion at the last Conference, and his party was, of course, in hearty accord with .'-the objects of the Prime Minister's missibn. But the personal goodwill was not the monopoly of any section of the House, and the Labour Party, while not waiving any of its anti-national and anti-Imperial convictions and prejudices, was at least less blatant in its expression of them, and found in the-economic aspects of the Conference agenda an opening for constructive criticism. This very salutary tendency was doubtless stimulated by the fact that it is a British Labour Government which will have the conduct of the Conference, and which has in the failure of its unemployment policy and in its faith in Free Trade a strong inducement to make the most of every possible nonfiscal method of promoting Britain's export trade and the economic unity of the Empire. - The title, Imperial Conference, said Mr. H.E. Holland, implied Imperialism, which in turn suggested domination and subjection. But he is able to see that, in the hands of Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald and Mr. J. H. Thomas at any rate, Imperialism and the Imperial Conference stand not for domination and subjection but freedom and co-opera-tion. Labour domination—if Mr. Holland will pardon so Imperialistic a term —of the. Conference may have encouraged him to press with renewed vigour his suggestion that representation at the Conference should not be confined to a single party. Without going the full length of Mr, Downie Stewart's contention that if all parties were admitted to the Conference "the proceedings would develop into a bear garden," it is, easy to see that the result would not be to make for the expedition of business or . for the quickening of the delegates' sense of responsibility. There was more to be said for the proposal when there were only two parties to be considered, but the representation of each of the States by three or even more party delegations would be a much more risky procedure. There is, however, one argument in favour of the representation of the New Zealand Labour Party at the Conference of which we are glad to make Mi1. Holland a present. All the loose, irresponsible, redflag and white-flag talk about disarmament and the League of Nations and the Naval Treaty,

as though they justified or even demanded the paralysing of our own petty forces, would be seen in its true proportions in the presence of the Labour Ministers who followed tip their success at the Naval Conference with Defence Estimates exceeding £110,000,000, and who "to remedy deficiencies under the London Pact"—that is, the Naval Treaty—are now considering a building programme of £50,000,000. In spite of all that this Conference and all the other conferences have done, the leaders of British Labour know that the Empire still needs defending, but these very achievements are used by the Labour leaders, of New Zealand as a ground for reducing our own tiny contribution to the cost of the common defence, and thereby increasing the proportionate share which the British taxpayer —who, of course, includes the British worker—already has to bear. Participation in a Labour-run Imperial Conference might convince our Labour leaders that, though loyalty to the Empire leaves them cold, loyalty to their comrades in the Homeland should keep them from such detestable meanness.

One of the pleasant surprises in the Prime Minister's statement was, as we mentioned yesterday, the reference to the Singapore Base, but we are very glad to add now that before the debate closed he had underlined it and improved it very considerably. Mr. Coates had delivered a powerful appeal on this important matter which had perhaps been' prepared in anticipation of a less satisfactory attitude on the Prime Minister's part, but it was by no means thrown away. It was good for the House and for the country to hear, and it may well have had some effect in stiffening up the Prime Minister. Mr. Coates expressed the hope that Mr. Forbes would make himself fully acquainted with the views of the Various officers with whom he would come in contact at the Imperial Conference before making Singapore the subject of a pacific gesture as Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald did in 1924. There may be all the difference in the world between gelling ihose opinions at first-hand and getting them through other official channels which may, perhaps unconsciously, have coloured them as ihey

passed. How the 70 cruisers which in 1927 were deemed to be the minimum required for the safety of the Empire were reduced two years later to 50 has never been- precisely explained, but the First Lord of the Admiralty has made it quite clear that political reasons —not, as he put it, derived from the party politics of the new Government, but from the Board's diagnosis of world politics— played a large part in the startling change. In London our Prime Minister will be able to'distinguish between the two classes of experts, and he will not go to admirals for his politics or to politicians for his naval strategy. The notable.contribution made by the Prime Minister to yesterday's debate was based on this very matter of cruiser reduction. While there had been some criticism and difference of opinion as to the value of tho Base, said Mr. Forbes, wo had to remember that it was more than ever necessary to have a repair base in the Pacific in view of the reduction ia the number of war vessels in that field. The provision for defence in the Pacific had been weakened. ' Mr. P. Fraser's cross-examination of the witness on this point only served to strengthen his testimony. Mr. Forbes: "-With a smaller number of vessels in the Pacific, it seems to me that they should be in a position to be repaired." As a measure,of insurance he thought tho Base project was wise. No other country was so much interested in the question as New Zealand, because our long sea routes depended on protection. What proportion of the 50 cruisers are assigned to the Pacific we are unable to say. It will probably be a very tiny share of this painfully small total, but whatever the size of the share it must be smaller than before, and the fewer the niunber of cruisers available the more imperative the necessity that they shall not go all the way to Malta for repairs. To a party which does not believe in cruisers at all the next best .thing to having no cruisers at all would doubtless be the inability to repair them, but that is not the creed of Mr. Forbes. His faith is that not only of Mr. -Massey and Mr. Coates, but of his late leader, Sir Joseph Ward, and on this point it is strengthened by the results of the Naval Treaty from which pacifists are able to draw an opposite conclusion.