The Timaru Herald TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1940 Mr Speaker’s Resignation

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLVIII, Issue 21624, 9 April 1940, Page 6

The Timaru Herald TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1940 Mr Speaker’s Resignation

THE resignation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Hon. W. E. Barnard, from the official Labour Party is, as his letter to the Prime Minister discloses, a repercussion of the recent dispute between the Cabinet and the Left Wing of the Labour Party which was settled in favour of Mi’ Fraser last week. Since Mr Barnard feels that lie cannot conscientiously preserve his ties with the Party the only course he could honestly follow is that which he has now taken. However, the reasons upon which he bases his criticism of the Government are not particularly well founded. There was a time when Mr Barnard expressed profound dissatisfaction with the defence policy of the Government, but now that the nation is engaged in a bitter war he is prepared to argue over more or less academic trifles. In one part of his letter Mr Barnard states “When Great Britain is at war we are at war, but we are entitled to fuller assurances from the British Government than the bare statement that Hitlerism must be defeated.” What else Mr Barnard expects was not explained, but that declaration should be enough for most reasonable people. As a summary of war policy it is sufficient. Hitlerism, and all it stands for, will either be defeated or it will triumph, and the most casual knowledge of recent history proves with horrible clarity what the ascendancy of Hitlerism means. The British Government has for the present no more specific war aim than the destruction of Hitlerism and for that reason it can communicate nothing else to the Dominion Government. Mr Barnard also claims that Mr Chamberlain calls the tune to which New Zealand dances. This, of course, is merely an offensive way of saying that the British Government has indicated to the New Zealand Government the way in which it can best serve the Allied cause and has specified the amount of support which New Zealand might be expected to provide. It is true that this matter has not been considered in detail by the Dominion Parliament, but it must be remembered that Parliament approved the declaration of war upon Germany and it is now the Government’s responsibility to prosecute the war, under British guidance naturally, to the best of its ability. Mr Barnard chooses to describe willing co-operation with the British Government as “servility,” but to do so betrays singular failure to appreciate obvious facts. The British navy is keeping the seas open for New Zealand trade, the trade which is thp country’s lifeblood. Something must be given unquestioningly in return for this protection and the Government surely deserves more for recognising its responsibility than ill-balanced find unjustified criticism such as Mr Barnard has made.

In a general way Mr Barnard’s complaint against the domestic policy of the Government is that it has not travelled far enough or fast enough towards the vague and perilous goal of monetary reform. One glance at the present situation should show that this is no time for experiment. If the Government can keep New Zealand running as it is now, in addition to carrying ou the war, it will have enough work to do. Many things must be shelved in the meantime. There is no more logic either in Mr Barnard’s complaint against the Iqck of democratic control in the Labour Party. The choice of Mr Fraser as leader of the Party last week was democratic enough, for he was elected by a handsome majority over both the candidates nominated against him.

While the untimeliness of Mr Barnard’s declaration is clear, obscurity remains concerning his future. The Prime Minister has suggested that his letter should have contained reference to his resignation from the Napier seat and also to the Speakership, an office he holds by virtue of his former allegiance to the Labour Party. He is entitled to continue in office for the complete term of the present Parliament, but since his personal feelings against the Prime Minister arg so pronounced it becomes questionable whether he will be able to bring to a responsible office in the future the essential impartiality he has displayed conspicuously in the past. This is a matter he must refer to his own conscience.