EMPIRE AFFAIRS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, 8 April 1931, Page 4

EMPIRE AFFAIRS.

NEW ZEALAND’S ATTITUDE.

AN INTERESTING ADDRESS.

An interesting and instructive address was delivered by Mr W. H. Cocker at the Optimist Club luncheon yesterday. He dealt briefly with the settlement of New Zealand and also the Dominion’s attitude and outlook in regard to Empire and world affairs; Outlining the early years of New Zealand history, Mr Cocker said that prior to 1840 there was little settlement. For some years there was a great deal of lawlessness raid it was realised that some established authority was required. It was only after a great deal of trouble had occurred and a strong appeal by the missionaries that Great Britain was induced to set up a controlling authority. The first representative government was established in 1552. The early pioneers, said the speaker, made good use-.of their trust and passed laws suitable for the times and which laid the foundation for subsequent legislation. There was no Cabinet at first and control was really in the hands of three representatives appointed by the British Government. A battle for political independence was waged during the first two months. “On the first day on which Parliament sat,” said Mr Cocker, “the standing orders 1 were suspended, and a resolution passed for the setting up of Bellamys. That was the only piece of legislation put through in the first two months. ’ ’

Passing on to the development of the British Empire, Mr Cocker said that one would have thought that the eaily pioneers, who were men of ability and with a high regard for constitutional liberty, would have taken an important part in the development of the Empire. He said the contrary had taken place, and New Zealand had played an unimportant part, almost a negligible part, in the development of the Biitisli Empire. Canada, Africa, Ireland and later Australia had contributed most to the development. New Zealand had benefited by the movements which had taken place elsewhere. Mr Cocker ventured the opinion that the politicians in New Zealand had shown weakness in that too much dependence had been placed on the views expressed in Britain on matters concerning the Empire and foreign affairs. We had uo views ourselves, but were simply content to dot the i’s and cross the t’s made by Great Britain. Mr Cocker stated that there were indications in New Zealand of a lack of interest in foreign affairs, and that important events often passed unnoticed. New Zealand, he thought, had got into a back water. It seemed to him that we were content to leave Great Britain to control all Empire and foreign affairs. Contributing factors to that were New Zealand’s distance from Great Britain and also the need for naval protection. Our aloofness to outside affairs had also been contributed to by too much attention to. the material development of the country. The achievements had been good but a preoccupation with material things had tended to close our minds to tilings' of more impoitance. New Zealand’s chief danger was 'a feeling of complacency. The outlook and Jioint of view were homogeneous and there was too little tolerance of people who thought differently to ourselves. The people of New Zealand, thought Mr Cocker, refused to recognise other than the accepted point of viev. He said he did not wish to paint. a gloomy picture, and expressed the view that New Zealand could still play an important part in world affairs if. a greater interest were taken in affairs elsewhere. Mr Cocker concluded by referring to the request made at the last Empire conference for preference to Dominion goods’. He said that the* request meant asking Great Britain to deliberately increase the cost of living. He ventured to suggest that no British Government could have adopted a different attitude to that uiiu-h had been done.

Mr Cocker was accorded a hearty vote of thanks for his address.