THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1930. THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21103, 13 August 1930, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1930. THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Rather vague, if discursive, in its tenor was the discussion in the Honse of Representatives on Imperial affairs, foreshadowing, as the public will assume, Mr Forbes’s departure this month for the Imperial Conference. A certain amount of reserve is generally, perhaps inevitably, apparent in debates of the kind. The head of the present Government in New Zealand gives his assurance, which was only to be expected, that it shares, in no less measure than previous Governments, the traditional attitude of New Zealand towards the United Kingdqm. Certainly the people of this country will not feel any lack of confidence in Mr Forbes as an upholder of their views in relation to the Empire and to the part which they wish to see New Zealand playing in the matter of the maintenance of its solidarity. The suggestion put forward by Mr Coates, that the Prime Minister should be accompanied by a legal adviser, will certainly be allowed, however, to carry a good deal of weight. The question of dominion status is a somewhat involved one, and Mr Forbes’s statement cannot be said to have clarified it in the public mind. That is perhaps not surprising, seeing that students of the constitutional position within the Empire have done their best to create confusion of thought by the expression of varied judgments on the subject. The memorable pronouncement by the Imperial Conference of 1926. on the relations of the dominions with Great Britain has been given differing interpretations. Some have seen in it the creation of a new status of independence for the dominions, others consider it to be a mere gathering np of existing facts, others again criticise it as weakening the efficacy of the British Empire for maintaining the peace of' the world. Professor Keith, in his volume on the Sovereignty of the British Dominions, has regarded it as at once a record of facts and a programme for the future. Lord Balfour 'and his committee devised a formula recording all that was indisputable about Imperial relations, and that formula has become a charter to which reference is inevitably made in every constitutional discussion affecting the Empire. The committee's pronouncement, accepted by the conference, respecting the position of the dominions as autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, was accompanied by a rider—which may have been rather lost sight of on occasion—to the effect that, though equality of status was the root principle governing Imperial relations, the principles of . equality and similarity appropriate to status did not universally extend to function. Mr Coates offered a pertinent reminder on this point in the course of Monday’s debate.'. ‘--Here,” said the committee, “we require something more than immutable dogmas. For example, to deal with questions of diplomacy and questions of defence, we require also flexible machinery—machinery which can from time to time be adapted to the changing circumstances of the world.” Those who take the view that, as a consequence of the resolution of 1926, the only link that binds the Empire together is allegiance to one Crown, and that the connection between Britain and the dominions is purely a personal union, advance a theory which is rejected by an authority like Professor Keith. The rider or addendum to the conference resolution referred to acknowledges, it is pointed out, .the obvious truth that for practical purposes the dominions are not the “ equals ” of Great Britain. The tie consists not only in the common allegiance, but’in the necessity they are under to delegate certain f nnetions to Great Britain. Status, it has been put, is one thing,' and stature another. When the Imperial Conference resolution was first promulgated there was perhaps a-ten-dency to exaggerate its significance—certainly there was such in the Continental and American mind. Mr Forbes’s observation, “We have no complaints and no demands,” reflecting as it does the general outlook of his countrymen, well illustrates the feeling of this part of the Empire at all events in relation to the many fine points made in all the discussion on the subject of dominion status. Whatever stops may be taken by the impending Conference in pursuing the status formula to its logical conclusion, it will still remain, as Mr Forbes has pointed out, for the'New Zealand Government and the New Zealand Parliament to decide how far, if at all, the recommendations should be carried into practice in respect of this Dominion. The questions of inter-imperial relations, foreign diplomacy, and defence come first in the agenda of the approaching Conference, and following them economic questions, including various aspects of Empire trade, are to he considered. The importance of the matters awaiting discussion is very apparent. In the question of defence New Zealand is deeply interested, and the sentiments expressed by. the Prime Minister in respect of the dependence ■ of this country for security upon the navy are thoroughly sound, and welcome. Mr Holland’s objection to the word “ Imperial,” as denoting domination, is surely trivial, and his idea that all political sections of- the parliaments of all the dominions should be represented at the Conference conjures up an amusing picture of the probable .result were the attempt made to carry it into execution.