PARLIAMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 25 July 1945, Page 2

PARLIAMENT

BUSINESS FOR SESSION WELLINGTON, July 24. A forecast of the main business of the present session of Parhament was given in the House of Representatives this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser). He suggested that the Budget would be introduced and debated before the more important legislation was introduced. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holland) asked for an indication when the Bank of New Zealand Bill and the Internal Airways Bill and the legislation for the . minimum family income would be introduced. He asked also when ,New Zealand s future war effort would be discussed. The Prime Minister said that as far as New Zealand’s war effort was concerned, he hoped to give the Houses an opportunity to discuss that this week, and there would be no decision until Parliament had been consulted. Whatever information was available would be placed before members and both the future of the New Zealand Division and the New Zealand Air Force would come up for discussion. Mr ’Fraser said that it was quite true that there w as some very important legislation to come down during the session. There was also the Budget, and, as some of the legislation involved finance, it would probably, be most convenient to take rhe Budget debate before the banking legislation and the Family Income Bill. Mr Fraser added that the Home Improvement Bill, which was circulated last session, would also be reintroduced. There were also several Labour Bills, including one for the consolidation of the Factories’ Act, amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Act, and Shops’ and Offices Act, and the Apprenticeship Bill. There would also be the consolidation of the Nurses’ and Midwives Act, with some amendments, and the Airways Bill. “As far as I can see, the session will not be over early, as there are some important matters to be considered about which there might be some difference of opinion,” he added, amidst laughter. , Tr , . Mr Doidge (Nat., Tauranga) What about the country quota? Mr Fraser: What is that? I don t think -that we need to get excited about the particular subject. There will be an announcement • made in due course. I am sure that the overwhelming ambition of the member for Tauranga to give equal value to everybody will be fully met! Mr Doidge: I am sure that lesson of Dunedin North will not be lost. Mr Skeat (Nat., Patea) asked the Minister of Labour if he would consider the introduction of legislation giving the right to trade unionists to have printed balance sheets and statements of accounts supplied them. He said that certain unions had not received these for years. He said the members of one union were told that thev could not have printed balance sheets, in case they got into the hands of the National Party. (Laughter). FINANCE BILL Mr. Semple resumed the debate on the Finance Bill. He told the House that he apologised to nobody for his recent statement about setoungers and wreckers. He would go on denouncing such “crooks” all his life. The Minister said that ninety-eight per cent, of the New Zealand trade unionists were workmen who compared well with those in any part of the world, but there was always, in any community, a small percentage of men who were wreckers, and not builders; and war-time gave these and other racketeers the opportunity to profit from the nation’s difficulties, Mr. Nash, replying to the debate, stressed that the representatives of the primary industries had expressed their explicit agreement with the fact that the lump sum payments from Britain were not payments for products shipped to Britain, but were compensation for ■ the high prices charged to New Zealand importers for goods purchased in Britain. It was to compensate New Zealand for these unprecedentedly high prices or levies that Britain had agreed to pay what amounted to four million pounds yearly for seven years. The farmers’ committee which had investigated the matter in detail had agreed that this money did not belong to farmers. When fine committee stages of the Bill were taken, there was considerable discussion on the trade agreement with Britain on lines of the earlier debate. By time the tea adjournment was reached, sixteen clauses had been approved. Progress was then reported.

UNITED NATIONS CHARTER The House of Representatives settled down this evening to consideration of the motion for approval and ratification of the Charter of the United Nations Conference at San Francisco. The Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser) presented the motion. He referred to his report on the conference which was presented to the House on Friday and said that what was wanted was adoption and ratification of all of the United Nations, and the full entry of those nations into the obligations under the Charter. That would provide a means of permanent peace. Mr. Fraser said that, at San Francisco, there was no attempt to form an Empire bloc, or to “gang up” against other nations. The only bloc at San Francisco was that of the sponsoring Powers, Britain, the United States and Russia. They had agreed on certain points before the conference opened. Britain did not expect the Dominions to accept all of the points that the sponsors had ‘agreed upon. A satisfactory feature of the conference was that, although the delegates urged speed, the machinery of the conference and the patience of Mr. Stettinius on the Steering Committee ensured that full discussion was given all problems. Discussing the New Zealand amendment which sought to write into the Charter a pledge for common action against aggression, Mr. Fraser said the amendment was approved by 26 votes to 18, but it just failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority. He could never understand today" the reluctance of the major Powers to support such a pledge, of common action against aggression. The only possible reason was that the great nations did not yet fully trust one another. In spite of that, he had great hopes for the success of the Charter, because trust and confidence between the great nations should grow as the organisations provided for in the Charter grew at]d functioned. Mr. Fraser said there was a mass ol detail he had not gone into. The New Zealand delegation had. gone to the conference determined to advance understanding between the nations, and a desire to improve the machinery of the new World Organisation.. They had failed in some things, and had succeeded in others. They had fought as far as they could to make the Charter as democratic,, progressive and effective as possible, and when they had to accept defects, then it was a case of a Charter, or no Charter and they never hesitated. There were defects remaining, but they could be overcome. As President Truman had said, it was not a solution of the problem, but a way to a solution. The road was there. It was for the nations to take it, and he hoped New Zealand would take the first step by adopting the resolution he had moved. OPPOSITION SUPPORT Mr. Doidge said that no fault could be found with the aspirations and aims of the Charter, but it was questionable whether the conference had built the right* craft to achieve those

aims. Representatives of eighty-five per cent of the world’s populations went to San Francisco to find that blue prints of the world organisation had already been drawn up, and that it was a case of take it or leave it as far as the Charter was concerned. The Power of veto did not make sense in a world that cried out for peace and justice. If another war loomed up decisions as to what should be done would rest with the five Great Powers. and unanimity even among them was not necessary. If one Great Power stood out it would bring the whole structure to the ground. It was not difficult to see too that in Europe as it was to-day it would be possible for some great nation to take a small nation under its wing and then for the great nation to protect its satellite by the use of the veto power. Mr. Doidge -drew attention to .the fact that by signing the Charter New Zealand would undertake to make available to the Security Council , at its call armed forces, some of which must be available immediately. Presumably that meant we would have to have standing forces in New Zealand. Some establishment would, certainly be required, and it was likely to be of considerable cost. The whole programme opened up immense possibilities, and it appeared to him that it would mean universal military training in New Zealand. Mr. T. Clifton Webb (Nat., KaiDara) said it was by no means belond the bounds of possibility .that New Zealand would be offered a permanent seat on the Permanent Court of International Justice. If so the logical choice would be the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers). For him it would be a fitting climax to his distinguished career, for us it would be a great compliment, and to the Court it would be a great advantage. The debate was interrupted at 10.aO p.m.