DECISION BY CONSENT

Southland Times, Issue 25357, 8 May 1944, Page 4

DECISION BY CONSENT

EMPIRE FOREIGN POLICY MR FRASER’S VIEWS (Rec. 7 p.m.) LONDON, May 6. The conception of Empire which Mr P. Fraser, Prime Minister of New Zealand, developed at his Press conference rests on two premises, says The Times in a leading article. First, every Dominion is a sovereign State and free to make its own decisions. Second, every Dominion has its own problems, external besides national, and therefore it is impossible for one voice to declare the Empire’s policy. The conclusion to be drawn from these admitted facts is that a common policy can be evolved only by the method of consultation and discussion leading to eventual agreement. This method of solving problems is the very core of the British constitutional system. It, is the principle of Cabinet Government and it is equally the principle of Imperial Conferences. Decision must be by consent. Mr Fraser made it clear that the method was proving adequate to the issues before the conference. Among the questions Mr Fraser discussed at his Press conference was the proposal for an Empire Secretariat. He said he had an open niind on the question. ( “If more meetings can be arranged between Prime Ministers, the Ministers for External Affairs and so on,” he said, “I am all for it. Such meetings must be in the interests not only of the Brit-: ish Commonwealth but also of the whole world.” If it could be arranged he would be happy to extend an invitation to Wellington for the first meeting. In this connection Mr Fraser expressed strong disagreement with the suggestion that on any future international body there should be only one voice for the Commonwealth. “It cannot be done,” he said. “We all have different problems and I would not presume or dare speak on questions affecting the internal policy of other Dominions.” The exchange of information was working excellently, he continued. On trade, commerce and foreign affairs New Zealand had been given adequate material to form her own judgment.

FAVOURABLE PRESS COMMENT Mr Fraser’s Review (Official News Service) LONDON, May 6. Mr Fraser’s review of New Zealand’s war effort and his replies to a wide variety of questions asked him at the Press conference in London have received very favourable publicity and comment in the British Press today. The newspapers emphasize and praise the extent of the Dominion’s sacrifice on the fighting fronts and express gratitude for the determination of New Zealand to supply foodstuffs to Britain. The Times brackets New Zealand and Australia, together in an editorial which acknowledges their part in both the European and Pacific theatres. It adds: “Both Mr Curtin and Mr Fraser have now expressed themselves not only on the contributions their countries are making to the common endeavour, but also on the ways of shaping and achieving the common purposes of the Empire in war and peace. Mi’ Curtin has made clear on more than one occasion that while he himself is convinced of the need for improving the present machinery for consultation and co-operation between the members of the Commonwealth, he is fully prepared for the give and take of discussion on means to that end. At his Press conference yesterday Mr Fraser testified to the working of the existing machinery in time of war. There were occasions when immediate decisions had to be taken in Wellington no less than in London, but at other times almost without exception, not only was full information given in advance, but there has been time for the Prime Ministers both to take the views of their Cabinets and consult other Dominions interested.

PROPOSED SECRETARIAT “In the light of his experience Mr Fraser approached the question of the development of a Commonwealth secretariat with an open mind,” says The Times. “He agreed that the Prime Ministers and Ministers of External Affairs could profitably meet more frequently, but pointed out that it was easier to plan schemes for personal contacts than carry them out. Apart from the emergencies of the war, the domestic controversies of election campaigns and other accidents of political life make it difficult for leading Ministers to leave their own countries at fixed dates. The Times editorial concludes: “Mr Fraser made it clear that the method is proving adequate to the issues before the conference now in session. Men with common traditions and common purposes are finding their way- to unanimity with the result that the conference has already made progress which Mr Fraser describes as very satisfactory. In short, the Prime Ministers can be expected to work their way to conclusions to which each will make his.,individual contribution, but which as ultimately formulated will embody ‘the sense of the meeting.’ ”