The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1921. THE DEBATE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10851, 17 March 1921, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1921. THE DEBATE

The debate has been—up to the division—suggestive rather than instructive. It has, of course, revealed an overwhelming approval of the Prime Minister’s visit to the Conference. Somewhat paradoxically it has revealed also a singular neglect of the necessity for giving our representative at the Conference his instructions. A feeble plea was put up from the Government benches of the impossibility of foreseeing all the matters and points to be discussed at the Conference. There is not much room for surprise that such a plea was raised, because the debate, which is the leading feature of the special session convened for one purpose, has travelled over almost everything under the sun. A House that* so behaves may naturally he supposed to be favourable to a plea which implies that the Imperial Conference may devote its chief attention to the unexpected. But if there is no room for surprise, there is also none for disquiet. The Plume Minister’s lucid, frank, and comprehensive statement has outlined the Conference business and indicated his views as to the course to be adopted. We may say at once that his declarations about the status of the Dominions, a Federal Parliament, and an Imperial executive are on safe, sound lines, which Parliament should endorse without hesitation. In the matter of our produce in London, and of our finance there, Parliament, having heard his views, and knowing his actions with regard to all these matters, can give him a free hand. These are, of course, not in the scope of the Conference work. The naval question is the thorniest of the Conference subjects. On that question Mr Massey might well have spoken more fully. Economy in our land defence he stressed, and that is good hearing. On the need for preparation he could, holding the position he does, not hold any other view than of its imperativeness, considering the uncertainties before the well-meaning and well-started League of Nations. Of the sea preparation, he rightly regards it as the most important. The last - named has received rather unexpected light from the First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech (published yesterday as cabled) on the Naval Estimates, in which he said his Government’s policy relies, inter alia, on the upbuilding of Dominion navies. On this last alone, Parliament should come to a definite decision before Mr Massey leaves Wellington. Are we to begin building at an accelerating rate of cost disastrous as well as wasteful, or are we to contribute our share of the expenditure from the British Exchequer? If the question is not settled now, our representative will he without a guide, and both the Conference and the Imperial Government will be in the dark. Obviously, a clear determination here now will avoid great trouble in the future, One of our governing principles should be, we ought never to forget, that all possibilities of trouble in the Imperial relations now developing must, be minimised if the scheme of Imperial government is to he a success.

The domestic interest in the debate is various. To begin with, it has revealed the opening of a rift in the Reform Party. This was shown chiefly by Mr Malcolm’s speech. HSs hostility to his political chief and party was emphasised rather than qualified by the smothered violence of his condemnatory utterances. The strong objection—to take an instance—to the Ministerial policy of sending the Premier to the Conference, logically requires him to vote for Mr Holland’s amendment. Hie whole speech, in fact, made one wonder what has wrought the change in the dream of this hitherto staunch “Reformer.” Mr Lysnar, the newest recruit of “Reform,’’ was not far behind the fuming member of the Old Guard, for though he expressed great admiration for his chief, he did not scruple to denounce him hard as ruining the meat industry by his favourable treatment of certain interests, and threaten him with dire condemnation if he does not speedily mend his ways. Another new recruit, Mr Craigie, who actually seconded the Address, hut thought it necessary to take the shelter of an assurance that he was not binding himself in any party way, found himself faced with the Ministerial announcement that the.amendment proposed was taken as a no-confidence motion. Mr Craigie, thererfore, could not vote — voting is the crucial way, not speaking —as an independent. Ho had to vote for on© party or the other. “Under which King?” It was a rough question for a new recruit. His answer was to vote as he had spoken; but it can scarcely be called a guarantee of fidelity. Nor is Mr Craigie the only speaker whose consistency is

in doubt. A rather worse case is Mr Holland’s, who has not spoken in the debate, but has tabled an amendment, in which he expresses the utmost abhorrence of “diplomatic secrecy.” But the Labour Party practises openness only in copybook maxims and pious aspirations, and on account of these calls for the blessings, plaudits, and support of the whole world. In matter’s of moment this party protects itself with a locked door, after the manner of sundry parties in other parts of the world. The resulting actions of tliesc latter do not always bear the strictest scrutiny. Far be it from us to suggest an analogy, but we cannot refrain from supporting the protest against secret diplomacy, although it represents an inconsistency. The rift in the Reform Party, the evidence of which is not confined to the two speeches we have mentioned, 19 not surprising. This not' only because no one ever supposed this party to be exempt from the frailty to which all parties political are subject; but there is a line of specific condemnation running through many of the party speeches and writings which coincides with the lines followed by open opponents. This seems to represent a growing general agreement about the leading facts of the situation. Take the financial facts, for example. Some of these are good enough; for instance, a great surplus is assured for the current year, and renewal has been easily secured for ten millions, and there is a strong reserve in the Consolidated Fund. But other facts are bad, and these are at the Core of the situation. Their effect is that, in a time of unusual stress, the local money market is exhausted, while the foreign market is almost inaccessible. When Sir Joseph Ward left the Treasury he had built up a safe bridge for crossing this gulf. But his successor broke down the bridge, and stands in danger of being abused as the man who, after doing irreparable mischief, left his Ministerial position for a post of irresponsible safety. Be that as it may, the Prime Minister, who has succeeded this headstrong financier who scorned all competent warnings, has to find some means of crossing the gulf and getting, on what terms he can secure, without having any to offer that are easily endurable by the Dominion, entry to the foreign money market. It is as he implied last night either a reasonable loan or a slump in public works. This, with the slumped prices which threaten disorganisation to the Government finance- and sharpen criticism of Government methods, are things .likely to cause a rift in any party at the head of affairs, and especially in a party which took the reins claiming skilful captaincy and exceptional knowledge of the road. This is the sort of impression one gets from the debate, and one thing above all deepens that impression: out of all the abundance of discussion no sign has emerged of a leader with grasp enough to realise the situation and resource enough to dominate it.