New Zealand in the UK Parliament — 1803–2004

Lord Eliot said, the petition to which he was about to call the attention of the House, agreeably to his notice, was from the merchants, bankers, and shipowners, of the city of London, respecting the colonization of New Zealand; and embodying, as it did, the opinion of so large, so respectable, and so enlightened a body of men on a subject of such great importance, it appeared to him to be deserving of the serious consideration of the House. He regretted that the subject had not been taken up by some hon. Member whose talents and whose position in the House might enable him to do more justice to the subject than he (Lord Eliot) was able to do; but, concurring as he did in the views of the petitioners, he thought it right to acquiesce in their wish that he should bring the matter under the consideration of the House.…

…In the observations with which he would presume to trespass on the House—and he should make them with considerable diffidence—his principal object would be to guard against any statements which might be made, either in that House or among the public out of doors, respecting the intention of the supporters of the Motion, to enter on that occasion into the whole question between the New Zealand Company and Her Majesty's Government. He believed that a notion of such an intention being entertained was generally prevalent, and he was stengthened in that belief by the inquiries which had been made of him by several hon. Members during the evening. But it was not at all the intention of the hon. Member for Dartmouth (Mr. Somes), and it certainly was not his intention, then to raise any discussion on a question which would probably come before the House on some future occasion. Hon.…

…Gentleman who had just sat down. It had been far from his wish that any personal attack should have been made on the character of the noble Lord. The complaints of Members of Parliament respecting the conduct of public men could not be regarded in that light. He was, however, whatever pain the occasion might cause him, compelled to pursue the subject, injustice to the New Zealand Company, and from the regard which he had to his own character and standing in that House. Before he proceeded, he must observe that great pain had, unintentionally on his part, been caused to the friends of Captain Fitzroy by some remarks which had fallen from him, with reference to that gentleman, on a former evening. He said, unintentionally, for it was far from his design to inflict any pain upon that gentleman, or his friends and connexions, by any remarks on his part; and therefore he took that opportunity of saying, that he was extremely sorry such had been the case, and sincerely apologised for having done so.…

Mr. Charles Buller : If, Sir, my sole object, on the present occasion, were to bring before this House the injury which the Government has inflicted on the New Zealand Company, by the violation of an agreement on which its 666 whole property depends, I should rely on your justice for preventing the rights of property from being violated in our persons, either by arbitrary repudiation, or disingenuous misconstruction. But even such an individual grievance is lost in the far greater case of public mismanagement which it is my duty to bring under your notice.…

Viscount Howick concurred so much in a part of the concluding recommendations of the honourable and gallant Officer, and so entirely agreed with him in thinking that to extend to New Zealand the principles of self-government at the earliest possible moment was the remedy most likely to lead to a better state of affairs in that Colony, that he would not follow the hon. and gallant Officer through the earlier part of his speech. He was the more inclined to abstain from so doing, because a large portion of the hon. and gallant Officer's speech was taken up with finding 816 great fault with the acts of the New Zealand Company. On that point he entirely concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr.…

Sir Robert Peel : Sir, it would be unfortunate if any differences connected with party considerations, or any conflict that there may have been between the Colonial Department and the New Zealand Company, should divert our attention from the consideration of what is due to the interests of that Colony which is the immediate subject of this discussion. Sir, I willingly admit that the interests of that Colony are recommended to us by many considerations. I look at the extent of that Colony, at its line of coast, at the quantity of land in it 948 capable of cultivation and improvement; I look, above all, at its position and the new importance which it has acquired by the events which have been passing in the Pacific, and by the opening of the trade with China.…

…The missionaries of the Society were alarmed at a course of policy being suggested, the pursuance of which would set aside the Treaty of Waitangi, which provided, that natives should not have lands taken away from them by virtue of the sovereignty over the island, ceded by them to the British Crown. Nothing, he thought, could be more clear, than the actual meaning of the Treaty; and he believed that the New Zealanders were sufficiently enlightened and educated, perfectly to understand the interpretation which common sense would put upon it. To act in any way in contravention to the Treaty, 313 would be to pursue a course at once fraught with disaster to the natives and to the settlers in New Zealand. He wished to take the opportunity of making a statement to the House upon the part of the Church Missionary Society, because, among other charges made by the friends of the Company, was one which accused the missionaries in New Zealand of having acted in an improper manner; of having, in fact, impeded the progress of the Colony, and of having ob…

Mr. C. Buller rose, and said: Sir, I entirely concur in the feeling which is expressed in the petition that has just been presented to you from the New Zealand Company; for I felt that it would not be necessary for any one on behalf of the New Zealand Company to bring the question again before the House during this Session; and if I do so on the present occasion, I hope the House will do me the justice to believe that I do it solely from a feeling of a strong necessity for such a course. I may state at once that it is not my desire to trespass on the attention of the House to the same extent as on a former occasion, for the subject-matter of discussion is not such as could justify me in thus trespassing on the House.…

…And now, Sir, I come to the particular Motion which is the subject of consideration to-night. The hon. Gentleman admits that it is incumbent on those who bring forward the Motion to assign good and sufficient reasons for its introduction. Sir, I certainly do think, that in the present state of New Zealand, and after the recent discussion which has taken place upon the subject, there ought to be some good and sufficient reasons assigned for again calling the attention of the House to the question, and for incurring the risk of widening the differences that have unfortunately prevailed between the authorities of this country to whom the management of the affairs of New Zealand is committed, and probably must continue to be committed.…

Mr. Sheil could not concur with his 1240 hon. Friend in his opposition to the Vote. He thought that it was but wise and prudent to fortify every settlement which was exposed to such an attack as Kororarika had sustained; and as to Captain Grey, the newly appointed Governor of New Zealand, it appeared to him that they should be liberal in their remuneration of a man who had the arduous duty to perform of correcting the calamitous mistakes into which the Colonial Office had been betrayed. No doubt some of the misfortunes of New Zealand were to be attributed to want of experience and incapacity on the part of Captain Fitzroy; but it was not at all on the vicarious back of Captain Fitzroy that the chastisement should exclusively fall.…

New Zealand, (78) 658, 671, 677, 690, 693, 962;—Lord Stanley, 1104, 1141;—Treaty of Waitangi, (80) 600;—The Company, 1089;—Com. moved for, (81) 665, 734, 738, 743, 744, 747, 963; Motion, (82) 807, 832, 840, 862;—(Supply), 1246

MR. LABOUCHERE : I rise, Sir, in pursuance of the notice I have given, to ask permission of the House to introduce a Bill for the purpose of suspending some of the most important provisions of the Act of Parliament which was passed in the last year—towards the close of the Session of 1846—to make provision for the government of the colony of New Zealand; and I shall endeavour to state to the House, as clearly and as shortly as I can, both the reasons which induce Her Majesty's Government to think it was their duty to recommend this course to the House, and an outline of the main provisions of the measure which I shall ask the House to agree to as a means of providing for the local government of that colony.…

…Gentleman who had just sat down, he would not revive the question as to the inconvenience of discussing a measure of this nature at the present moment. He would at once enter upon the consideration of one or two points connected with the Bill, as well as of points of a collateral nature, not directly embodied in the provisions of the Bill, but of such vital importance to the well-being of the colonists and natives of New Zealand, that it would be impossible to fairly discuss the Bill without entering into a review of these points, and their bearing upon the general subject. The provisions of the Bill he found to be of two kinds—they were partly suspending, and partly enacting. With respect to the enacting clauses, although they undoubtedly did contain provisions of an unusual character, delegating all the powers of the State to a few individuals, yet as they were in accordance with the recommendations of Governor Grey, and seemed to be called for by the force of circumstances, he thought it would be better to pass these provisions.…

…When this Bill was before the House previous to Christmas, as well as when it was proposed to go into Committee on Wednesday last, I took no part in the discussion which then arose. On those two occasions the discussion was almost entirely confined to the question of the waste lands in the colony of New Zealand, and the rights of the natives to these lands as affected by the Treaty of Waitangi, and subsequent despatches of the noble Lord Her Majesty's Secretary for the Colonies. How far this Bill was called for—how far it is necessary—are points upon which the Bill has undergone no discussion. I am not underrating the discussion which took place upon the two former occasions—I consider that discussion to have been very important, forming, as it does, a necessary part of the subject; though I cannot but regret that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.…

EARL GREY , in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, stated that the object was to effect a suspension for five years of certain arrangements which had been made for the government of New Zealand. The grounds on which this measure was proposed were so clear, that it would not be necessary for him to trouble their Lordships 4 at much length. It would be recollected that in 1840 it was decided to make an experiment in regular colonisation, and a large number of English settlers left this country to plant a colony in New Zealand. Hopes, at first very sanguine, were, however, in no long time entirely frustrated, and prospects which seemed of the brightest order were overthrown.…

…Of this vast space, about one million of square miles have been divided into forty different colonies, each with a separate government: four of them are in Europe, five in North America, fifteen in the West Indies, three in South America, five in Africa and its vicinity, three among the Asiatic islands, and five in Australia and New Zealand. The population of these colonies does not exceed 5,000,000: of * From a published Report. 817 this number about 2,500,000 are of European race; of whom about 500,000 are French, about 350,000 are Ionians and Maltese, a few are Dutch or Spaniards, and the remainder, amounting to about 1,600,000, are of English, Irish, or Scotch descent, Of the 2,500,000 inhabitants of the colonies who are not of European race, about 1,400,000 are Cingalese, and other inhabitants of Ceylon, and 1,100,000 are of African origin.…

…could assure the House that in bringing forward this measure, he did so under the impression of very great personal anxiety, and if he should fail in making his explanation of the subject as clear as he could wish, he hoped he should receive the indulgence of the House. He was so sensible of the importance, the difficulty, and the great responsibility of moving the grant of a new constitution for a Colony so peculiar in many respects as that of New Zealand, that he confessed he should 103 have felt, bad it not been for circumstances which he hoped the House would consider as a sufficient justification for the Motion he was now making, that after having held for so short a time the arduous office which he now filled, he might have been considered open to the charge of presumption for so soon endeavouring to settle a Colonial question of this difficulty and intricacy.…

…aronet stated that it was his intention to abandon, had been substantially retained, and he found that the most important provisions of the Bill, namely, that for the surrender of the waste lands, was clogged with a condition which would greatly diminish its value in the eyes of the Colonists. In reading through this Bill, the first thing that struck him was the immense quantity of government which was to be imposed upon the scanty population of New Zealand, which amounted, at the highest estimate, to about 26,000 Europeans, and about 100,000 natives. It appeared from this Bill that, first, Now Zealand was to be divided into two parts, an English part, and a native part. Within the English pale, English laws were to be enforced; without the pale, in the native part, native laws and customs were to be maintained by the Governor-in-Chief of New Zealand, notwithstanding the repugnancy of any such native laws to the laws of England, or of Now Zealand, provided they were not repugnant to the laws of humanity.…

Christchurch, Bishopric of (New Zealand), 2R. 1433, 1434

…ict a council for the local government thereof; such council shall have power to make orders and by-laws for providing for any matters which shall be specially subjected to the direction and control of the said council by any law of the said General Assembly." He was quite willing to allow that the discussion on the second reading of the Bill had had two useful results: first, it showed that hon. Members were generally anxious that, if possible, New Zealand should obtain a Constitution during this Session of Parliament; and, therefore, he hoped that the minority would hot offer any factious opposition to the further progress of the measure; and, secondly, it showed what were the chief differences of opinion with regard to the future form of that Constitution. The first great difference of opinion was whether New Zealand should form one political unit, or should be divided into several political units. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr.…

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH : The reason why I propose the Amendment of which I have given notice is this. It is proposed by this clause that a change should be made in the legal charge which the Company has upon the waste lands of New Zealand under the Act of 1847. I propose that no such change should be made, and that in transferring the management of the waste lands from the Colonial Office to the General Assembly of New Zealand, the strict legal rights of the Company, and no more, should be reserved. Now, what are those legal rights? By the Act of 1847 a sum of 268,000 l ., with interest, is charged upon and to be paid to the New Zealand Company out of the proceeds of the sales of waste lands "after deducting the outlay for surveys, and the proportion of such proceeds, which is appropriated to the purposes of emigration." Therefore the New Zealand Company is legally…

…Perhaps that was the necessary consequence of the constitution of such a body; for, unless some person took the lead, and became manager, he believed a Company of which the affairs were conducted by a Board of Directors without check or control was not likely to deal satisfactorily with matters of this kind. That the New Zealand Company had not succeeded was not very much to be wondered at, because the necessary expenses of founding new colonies in distant parts of the world were so great that measures of this kind would never answer as a pecuniary speculation. Schemes of this kind had always been exceedingly attractive; but from the enterprises of the early adventurers who founded some of the present United States, down to the present time, the result had invariably been the same, and however successful some of their attempts had been in creating flourishing colonies, they had uniformly proved ruinous as pecuniary speculations to the projectors.…

Christchurch, Bishopric of (New Zealand), 2R. [121] 1433, 1434; [122] 806, 809

MR. LABOUCHERE said, that he could not avoid confessing that the subject brought forward by the right hon. Member for Droitwich was one which he always approached with pain and concern, because he readily admitted that the Bishop of New Zealand had been hardly treated. But he was also quite sure that it was not the result of design on the part of any one who had had to do with the transaction, though that result was equally certain as if it had been; and he must repeat that it was impossible to review the proceedings without coming to the conclusion that, so far as the Bishop was concerned, he had been somewhat harshly treated. He must also confess that the pain he felt was aggravated by the circumstance that nothing could have been more disinterested or high-minded than the conduct of the Bishop 323 himself with regard to the whole matter.…

New Zealand, Sale of Waste Lands, Bill, see New Zealand Company's Claims Bill

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, the hon. Gentleman had merely given notice of his intention to call the attention of the House to this subject, and bad not intimated to the Government the terms or the nature of the proposition with which he had concluded bis speech. The hon. Baronet had taken for granted all the points at issue. It was not proved, but the hon. Baronet had assumed that the Government of New Zealand supported by the Government at home, had committed a gross blunder and a gross injustice in these dealings with the native chiefs. Any one who read the ample blue book on New Zealand affairs, in a candid spirit would come to a different conclusion. The hon. Baronet represented a very small party in New Zealand who had strongly objected to the proceedings of the Governor and of the Government.…

THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE said, that his noble Friend the noble Earl, in introducing this interesting discussion on a very important question upon the somewhat slender basis of a Bill which he (the Duke of Newcastle) had asked their Lordships to read a second time, expressed the regret which he felt that this was the only Bill which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to lay on the table with respect to the colony of New Zealand. Until the close of the noble Earl's speech he (the Duke of Newcastle) felt surprised at this expression of regret, not only because he knew the noble Earl disapproved of the measure which he (the Duke of Newcastle) introduced last year, but also because he 169 could not gather what remedial measure the noble Earl wished should be adopted.…

LORD LYTTELTON presented a Petition from Taranaki, New Zealand, on the Subject of the Distress brought upon them by the Native War; and to call the Attention of the House to the Subject, and to that of the Military Defence of the Colonies. The noble Lord proceeded to say, that the world had perhaps seen the two extremes of policy as to the relations between a country and its Colonies. The first was the old Greek system.…

MR. CARDWELL , who was indistinctly heard, said—I have, of course, no objection to the Motion of my hon. Friend, which is one for papers on a subject of great interest and importance, on which I entirely agree with him that it is most desirable for the interest of the Natives of New Zealand that the British Parliament should be fully informed. My hon. Friend has done me the honour to refer to the part I took twenty years ago with regard to the Treaty of Waitangi, which is the origin of our possession of New Zealand and the 1642 rights of sovereignty which we exercise in the colony. I have not the least desire to alter or modify any opinions I expressed at that time, or to adopt any policy that is indifferent to Native interests or regardless of their welfare, or which did not at I that time appear consistent with reason or humanity.…

EARL GREY said, this was a very serious and painful question. Very disastrous events had taken place in New Zealand. One of its most flourishing settlements had been ruined, an immense amount of property had been destroyed; there had been a frightful expenditure of life and treasure, and a war, which promised to become one of extermination, was now raging between the original inhabitants and the settlers. It behoved their Lordships to consider how it was that the present state of things had arisen. Ten years ago the colony was enjoying the utmost prosperity. The Native inhabitants were then contented and loyal subjects of Her Majesty; education and religion had been widely spread among them, and were daily becoming more general.…

…ty, and I will pay you the £500,000." Now, I want to know what interest the English people, who are 1514 to give this national guarantee, have in the matter? There has not been a word said on that point since the hon. Member for Taunton opened the discussion—and he dwelt upon the interest the British taxpayer has in the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies invoked our generosity and kindness towards the New Zealanders, But if we have any generosity to spare it is wanted by our countrymen—the taxpayers of this country. You have 100,000 people living in this colony of New Zealand, who, in an economical sense, are raised immeasurably above the average condition of the population of England; and you are asking the English population to bear the expense of a war carried on in that colony—and for what object? The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) tells us in his own peculiar fashion what the object is.…

New Zealand (Guarantee of Loan), Comm. Res. [175] 1696; 2R. [176] 1501, 1504, 1508

…But colonization means more than that—it means not only conquest but dispossession; it means taking possession of the land,. driving out the former inhabitants, and placing instead of them, the inhabitants of the colonizing country. The moment that occurs an undying feud arises between the in-comers and the aborigines, an undying conflict that you cannot get over, it must exist, and it will exist. Now, what occurred in the case of New Zealand? New Zealand was colonized not by the Government of England, but in spite of the Government of England. A certain number of people gathered together after the fashion of the old people whom sentimental historians have called the "Pilgrim Fathers." They assembled together at the mouth of the Thames, and signed a paper by which they agreed to subject themselves to a government to be instituted when they arrived in New Zealand. They threw off all subjection to England. England refused to assist them in colonizing New Zealand, and they went out in spite of England. Now I am here to vindicate the conduct of those men.…

VISCOUNT BURY, in rising to call the attention of the House to recent events in New Zealand, and to the Correspondence relative to New Zealand affairs which has lately been laid upon the Table of the House, said, it was not without considerable hesitation and long deliberation that he had decided on bringing the matter before the House, for he feared that in doing so he might provoke the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to commit himself to a certain course of policy which, when the country was roused, as he believed it would be roused, he would be compelled to alter. But having communicated with the right hon.…

…After waiting until it had become clear that Matutaera— the native King—and his people were minded to keep the peace, I addressed the enclosed memorandum to the Resident Minister, Dr. Pollen." The word "King," he might remark, had been the source of much unnecessary offence. There had never been a King in the colony of New Zealand. The natives had only heard of a Queen, and their notion—not a very exalted one of a King—was taken from the Book of Judges. Well, Sir William Martin, proceeded as follows:— 787 "He forwarded it with an expression of his entire concurrence to Wellington. No answer has as yet been received, but Dr. Pollen tells me that his letter was crossed by one from Mr. J. C. Richmond to himself, in which Mr. Richmond expressed his readiness to throw up the confiscated lands to a large extent. Since then our case has been strengthened by a letter from Mr. Serancke, full of details, of the accuracy of which he is satisfied.…

THE EARL OF CARNARVON , who had given notice to inquire of the Setary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government will consent, upon any conditions to delay the departure of the 18th Regiment now in New Zealand, but under orders to sail; and to move for any correspondence on the subject, said: My Lords, it was remarked the other night, and I think with great force, that it was much to be deprecated that colonial questions should be brought before your Lordships attention over and over again, and be made the subject of party discussion without 1325 imperative necessity. Now, I feel very deeply the serious importance of the matter to which.…

…That was one of the arguments on which his hon. Friend based Ms accusations. His next reference was to a speech of a Mr. Huntingdon, in Canada, of which he (Mr. Monsell) had never before heard. The statement of Sir Ranald Martin, to which his hon. Friend alluded, was one referring not to New South Wales, but to a despatch of Earl Granville to the Governor of New Zealand. There was nothing in the treatment of Now South Wales by the British Government of which Sir Ranald complained. His hon. Friend had also referred to a speech made by Mr. Duffy in the Parliament of Victoria. He (Mr. Monsell) had a copy of that speech before him, and he found that, speaking of the Colony of Victoria, Mr. Duffy said his impression was that, under the canopy of Heaven, there was not a country in which personal and political liberty were enjoyed in fuller perfection than in that Colony. These words of Mr. Duffy showed the view he, at least, took of the relations between the mother country and the Colonies.…

…The speed of the Board of Trade was electrifying compared with the speed of the Community in dealing with our problems today. I am worried that this important industry in Britain, which has seen its work force decline by 33 per cent. in the last 10 years, may become only a memory unless the Government exert themselves. I am conscious that more hon. Members wish to speak, but I could not allow the debate to pass without referring to New Zealand. All the good remarks that have been made about New Zealand are fully endorsed by me. That which apparently is being contemplated by the Community for New Zealand imports of butter is intolerable and is something that Britain cannot permit to happen. One of the difficulties has been the quota that we agreed with the Community on our accession. It has been declining year by year. New Zealand has been told to find its own -markets for the balance that it sent formerly to Britain. Another difficulty has resulted from that.…

New Zealand Scheme, Premier's Proposals to Parliament, of New Zealand, Aug. 6 [87] 774.

…It was rather curious to put the question that way. I should have thought he would have asked the Noble Lady what view was taken of New York in Plymouth, rather than what view was taken of Plymouth in New York. He rightly derided the idea, but by the same token and by the same geographical measurement, what base is there in Japan or belonging to any other naval Power 99 in the Pacific that could possibly be regarded as a menace to Australia or New Zealand? Singapore, after all, might be a convenience in peace time, but in war does the right hon. Gentleman seriously contemplate that the Admiralty would ever consent to the dispersion of our Fleet which would be involved by sending a Fleet to Singapore? I agree with General Smuts, who, in a telegram or memorandum which he addressed to His Majesty's Government last year, declared that conflagration in Europe would probably synchronise with contention in the Pacific, and that it was out of the question to suppose that the British Admiralty would be able to send the British Fleet, or a large part of it, to Singapore.…

York, Duke and Duchess of—Mission to Australia and New Zealand — Seychelles Islands, whether to be visited, 1381.

Hamburg to New Zealand and London to New Zealand Imperial Shipping Committee—Report—Whether submitted by [211], 1189.

…They are very illuminating. I find that the imports of beef are on a large scale, and no less than£25,500,000 worth was imported in 1931. Of this no less than£17,000,000 came in the form of chilled beef from South America, mainly from the Argen- 628 tine. Only£1,500,000 of this total was for frozen beef. On the other hand, we imported a quantity of frozen beef from Australia and New Zealand amounting to a little over£2,000,000. The reason for the popularity of chilled beef over frozen beef is that it is of superior quality. unfortunately, at present, it is impossible to import chilled beef from Australia because of the long distance it would require to be chilled. It was suggested in a previous Debate that it would be possible in future so to improve the process of chilling that Australian beef could be brought here chilled. At present beef can only be chilled for three weeks and has to be placed rapidly on the market and sold right away.…

Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN : I have returned recently from New Zealand and Australia, and my first impression 811 on coming back is to wonder on which side of the House to sit. There has been a distinct change since I left. I came here to-day particularly interested in the question of New Zealand. I was anxious to hear what the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) had to say on the subject, having just spent seven or eight weeks in New Zealand and two months in Australia. During that time I discussed this problem with everybody I met. In New Zealand it was certainly a very live subject.…

New Zealand:

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE : My Lords, I desire to support emphatically the Motion which has been moved in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Lloyd, and in doing so to associate myself with everything that he has said with the single exception of the word "Australasia." That is a word which is not at all approved of in New Zealand, and I venture to hope, out of consideration for the feelings of New Zealanders, and in order to avoid complications in the minds of the British public, some of whom fondly imagine that New Zealand is a part of Australia although it is twelve hundred miles away, that at least in this House the term will not be used. I awaited with some interest the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, because I began to wonder what he could find as an old member and a distinguished officer of the Royal Navy to object to in the terms of this Motion, and, if he will allow me, I should like to congratulate him on the line which, as voiced by him…

New Zealand:

…our Lordships' time yesterday in dealing with a somewhat cognate subject—namely, the prosperity of the British farmer in this country and the desirability of augmenting the supply of essential foods particularly in face of the possibility of the outbreak of another war. But I find it difficult to sit silent when I hear a discussion in this House which involves to such a large extent the future development and prosperity of the Dominion of New Zealand over whose administration I had the honour of presiding for five years, and, incidentally, the possible effect upon their industrial development, and upon the fortunes of our own primary producers, not to mention our industrial producers in the homeland. I for my part am grateful to the noble Viscount for initiating this debate, if it is only to keep alive in the public mind the enormous importance of cementing so far as we can and finding identity of interest between the purchasers of the homeland and all our oversea Dominions.…

Council, New Zealand Delegate's speech, [324] 1738.

New Zealand Government's attitude, [336] 1061–2.

…I would like to see a big organised scheme of Empire settlement. One of the most vital matters we shall have to deal with after the war is the difficulty of keeping up the standard of living of the big population we have in this country. We should try to distribute that population, not from the point of view of the population in Australia, in New Zealand, in Canada or in South Africa, but from the point of view of the whole future of the British race. Then we should see how we could redistribute our population in such a way that it could be fed and have its secondary industries, and live in comfort and happiness, in various parts of the world. I would advocate a special 427 Department of Overseas Settlement, with a special Minister in this House. I have been to Australia and South Africa and the other Dominions, and I have seen the difficulties which arose after the last war.…

…ians—I am talking of the man in the street and not of those at the top, the eminent statesmen with wide knowledge much of which could not be communicated to the people—were all saying that the only country they could look to was the United States. They were all thinking in their hearts that Britain could do more than she was actually doing to protect Australia from a threatened invasion, and to some extent the same remarks apply to New Zealand. I do not think that anybody who is at all far-minded, who realizes the distances in Australia and the lack of knowledge which many of us have on the subject and on which we have obtained more or less verbal information, can blame those people from taking this very critical view of the action of the Mother Country in 516 the last days of 1941 and the early days of 1942. Our power of sending troops or a fleet of any magnitude to Australia and New Zealand did not exist until very much later in the war.…

…rom the American point of view the five things—the Loan, the settlement of Lend-Lease, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations Bank, and the heads of the agenda for the Conference on International Trade and Employment—hung together and they were presented all together. I will admit that theoretically, academically, we could have made our acceptance of that group of instruments conditional upon the entry by Australia and New Zealand into the agreement relating to the International Monetary Fund as original members before the 31st December, which was the preliminary date. But we did not make that reservation. The Government entered into these engagements without making that reservation, and what I do want to put, with very great respect to the noble Lord whose brilliancy I admire, is this: Is it possible or is it conceivable as an act of statesmanship that we at this juncture should repudiate these agreements or endeavour to single out any one of them for repudiation? If that is not what Lord Beaverbrook means, I am not clear as to what his Motion does mean, b…

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE : My Lords, I feel bound to intervene in this debate, if only for a few minutes, because I find myself in the position of President of the New Zealand Immigration and Population Association, a position that I hold with the full approval and acquiescence of His Majesty's Government in that Dominion. May I be allowed, in passing, as I could not be in this House last week, to offer on my part a sincere welcome home to the Leader of the House after his very successful mission in the two countries of the Antipodes, with both of which I am fairly familiar and which I have myself visited in the course of this year.…

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) : I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." No lengthy explanation or supporting argument is required about this Bill. It speaks for itself, and if there were any doubt about its purpose or meaning it would be removed by the Explanatory Memorandum. In 1852, Parliament conferred a Constitution on New Zealand creating self-governing institutions. The Act limited the power of New Zealand to amend the Constitution. Another Act in 1857 made some changes, but left intact some of the limitations on this right to amend the Constitution. Those limitations were still retained at the desire of New Zealand by Section 8 of the Statute of Westminster, which was passed by this Parliament in 1931. The New Zealand Parliament now desire us to remove these limitations, and to give full power to amend their Constitution in any way they please.…

VISCOUNT SIMON : I think Eire has also. I can assure the Lord Chancellor that I am not making any small point. In his advocacy for the word "citizen," however, the Lord Chancellor did inform the Committee that both in Australia and New Zealand, such a citizenship at present existed. My information is rather different. My information is (this is only a speculation) that if New Zealand and if Australia were to carry out what is contemplated in this clause, it is likely that they will not enact anything about "New Zealand citizenship" or "Australian citizenship," but that they are quite likely to use words like "a British subject of New Zealand" or "a British subject of Australia." If they do that (would the Lord Chancellor be good enough to see whether he agrees?) I the present phraseology of the clause will prevent such people being British subjects here, because the two…

…It was considered impracticable for a number of reasons. In the first place, conditions operating in some Diminions differ from those operating here. The very geographical situation of the Commonwealth as a whole makes the thing very difficult. A time that suits New Zealand does not suit Canada and when it suits Canada it does not suit Australia. With the Dominions situated as they are, it is an exceedingly difficult problem to get together the responsible Ministers, and we can only have Prime Ministers at an Imperial Conference. It is exceedingly difficult to have an Imperial Conference of this kind at which they can all be present at the same time. Hon. Members will realise that when an Imperial Conference takes place this year all the Prime Ministers will not be present.…

…Let us first follow the right hon. Gentleman in his speech by running round the world to see how our supplies are coming in, because this little island, lying off the coast of Europe, is faced in its meat supplies, especially with an international situation threatening as it is at the moment, with an absolute life and death existence for our people. That makes any of us approach this debate in the most serious manner. Let us first take New Zealand, which has come up in the race and much exceeds Australia in the provision of meat for these islands. The New Zealand 2046 supplies, judging by the only authorities I can come by, which is the Press and certain information I am able to collect, show a very heavy drop in shipments. We are now depending for the maintenance of the 8d. ration precisely on these shipments, because the home supplies do not come in at this time of the year.…

…I wish to say briefly what were the objections that were raised when we met the deputation. First, they object to the new ancillaries because they are to be permitted to fill and extract deciduous teeth without having had a full dental training. What is it proposed to do? It is proposed to get girls—if we follow the New Zealand example—highly intelligent girls with the right manner, who will be specially picked and who will be given a careful and thorough training in that particular mechanical work. Furthermore, and I do not think this happens in New Zealand, they will be supervised by a fully qualified dentist, and that is very important. They will not only be trained in this very localised work, but they will be supervised by a fully qualified dentist and never left alone. There will always be someone present to whom they can refer. The dentists said that that proposal is an encroachment on their preserves.…

…We must try to put into proper perspective this vital matter of Commonwealth relations. I will try to speak in the most forthright fashion about it and I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do. The first thing I say is that the best friends of the British people are to be found in Australia and New Zealand. That is the impression I got on the visit I paid to those territories on behalf of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I would not dispute for a moment that we have many friends in other parts of the Commonwealth, for example, in Canada. It may be that we have some in India, although the evidence is not always ready to hand. I have no doubt that we have friends in Central Africa and in the adjoining territories but I have never seen, in all my travels, such manifestations of almost exuberant loyalty and affection as were exhibited during my visit.…

…These factors must always be borne in mind when economic links between Commonwealth countries are being considered. In other words, there are political and social factors which may sometimes outweigh short-term economic advantages. For example, it would be of small benefit to this country if the fall in the prices of primary products continued. This could lead to such economic stresses that Ghana, New Zealand, Ceylon or Pakistan could go through political changes which would weaken the links of the Commonwealth. The existence of the Commonwealth should also lead to the furthering of greater long-term development which strengthens the economies of all the member countries. The fact that the economies of Great Britain and other Commonwealth countries are more complementary than competitive gives great scope for mutual development and benefit. This does not mean that the economy of any one member should remain in its existing pattern. Nor does it entail cutting ourselves off from Europe or other highly industrialised areas.…

Sir T. Beamish : I do not have that figure, but I think that the way in which I have put it highlights one of New Zealand's anxieties fairly clearly. New Zealand has made very substantial efforts to diversify her economy. One of the questions which I asked some of the dairy farmers was this: "If you cannot sell your dairy produce, why do you not turn over to beef?" I was very quickly disillusioned. There are some very powerful reasons why it would be extremely difficult and costly for New Zealand to turn over to beef except over a long-term period. The market for prime beef is highly competitive and very difficult. But the New Zealanders have made considerable efforts to sell their beef.…

…It would vary, perhaps considerably. All 1179 we can do is look at the comparative importance of Britain as a market for Commonwealth goods. Using again the 1965 figures given by the Commonwealth Economic Committee, we find that we took 14 per cent. of Canada's exports and 18 per cent. of Australia's. But over a quarter of the latter was wool, which is duty-free. New Zealand is, of course, in a much more difficult position. She sells us 48 per cent., nearly half, of her total exports, of which wool accounts for 6 per cent. Even after that, however, more than 40 per cent. of New Zealand's exports come to Britain, consisting of dairy produce, mutton, lamb and other foodstuffs, all of which, under the existing E.E.C. system, would be subject to tariffs or levies. That is why the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary drew particular attention to New Zealand's problems in the discussions in the European capitals.…

…There is virtually free movement of workers within these countries. Whether that is a good thing or not I am not sufficiently experienced to pronounce, but it is something which, in industry particularly, may well give rise to concern and a great deal of thought must be given to this Article in any negotiations. I should like to say a few words about New Zealand. I have strong family ties with New Zealand and have met many businessmen and others who have been touring this country. I think it would be wrong to suppose that New Zealanders are completely against our joining the Six, but naturally they are worried, and I think with reason. It may be argued that New Zealand is a small country and that the new Commonwealth, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said in his admirable speech, owes us a limited allegiance. It may be argued that Canada and Australia have found new markets. But New Zealand has remained very loyal to us.…

…I am very glad, therefore, that the other noble Lords who have spoken made it perfectly clear that, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said, everyone must be the same before the law. As the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, may not be able to stay until the end because he has to catch a train—and I think this may be the case with others—I would assure him at once that one simple rule that could be followed by our Australian and New Zealand cousins with advantage when they come here is to be as frank and honest as they can possibly be, and then they will not run into any troubles. I shall proceed to demonstrate that the only cases of which I am aware—certainly the only cases cited by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford—are where people have sought by subterfuge to hoodwink and to dodge round the regulations, and where they have been a bit unlucky—and I think they should be unlucky. I am grateful to the noble Lord for creating this opportunity for debating this important subject and for giving me the chance of stating in more detail what the facts are.…

…Some of us in this House were schoolboys when he was at the height of his cricket career. He has had a distinguished diplomatic career, and I echo what was said by all those who wish him well in your Lordships' House. In his first innings here he has certainly made an excellent century. My own contribution to this debate will be centred on one country, New Zealand, mainly because in a month's time my wife and I are going out to New Zealand as guests of the Auckland City Council for the centennial celebrations of that City. 131 It will be our first visit to that country which bears the name given to it by one of my ancestors. I have no doubt that, although it will not be an official Government visit, or anything like that, the subject of the Common Market will be one with which we shall be faced.…

…They themselves have similar problems and have adopted a variety of methods to deal with them. So they were sympathetic to the needs of farmers in our hill areas and recognised the need for appropriate action in these areas where special conditions obtain. I am, therefore, satisfied that in the event of entry we should be able to give the continuing assistance needed to maintain the incomes of farmers in the hill areas. I now turn to New Zealand. The agreement which we reached with the Community in order to provide adequate arrangements for the very special position of New Zealand is a complex one, and I ask the House to bear with me if I set it out in some detail. First, it was agreed that there would be special arrangements for New Zealand dairy products. Quantitative guarantees have been agreed for the first five years, during which New Zealand would be guaranteed a market for agreed quantities. Butter is, of course, the product of particular importance to New Zealand.…

…I would have said so at the time, but I did not want to turn the matter into a debate. My Lords, in a way, I feel that I should apologise for speaking yet again on this particular subject and this particular aspect of the Bill for something like the tenth time in eight years. However, I think perhaps I need to declare my interest and my patriality or lack of patriality, by explaining that my grandfather was a younger son who went out to New Zealand in the 1880s to a younger son of a previous generation, and who by that time was Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives. He married a New Zealander and my father was born there. The family then moved to Australia where my father married an Australian, and I was born there. In fact, I was born in Australia in the year that the aforementioned grandfather returned to succeed his elder brother and come to your Lordships' House. Some of your Lordships, though not here to-day, may still remember him in the 'thirties. Not for nothing was he known as "Silly-Willy".…

…They themselves have similar problems and have adopted a variety of methods to deal with them. So they were sympathetic to the needs of farmers in our hill areas, and recognised the need for appropriate action in these areas where special conditions obtain. I am therefore satisfied that in the event of entry we should be able to give the continuing assistance needed to maintain the incomes of farmers in the hill areas. "I now turn to New Zealand. The agreement which we reached with the Community in order to provide adequate arrangements for the very special position of New Zealand is a complex one, and I will ask the House to bear with me if I set it out in some detail. "First, it was agreed that there would be special arrangements for New Zealand dairy products. Quantitative guarantees have been agreed for the first five years, during which New Zealand would be guaranteed a market for agreed quantities. Butter is of course the product of particular importance to New Zealand.…

Mr. Wilson : Indeed, I have refreshed my memory in the manner in which any former Minister is entitled. I have consulted the records, and in what I am about to say I have consulted the conventions, precedents and proprieties. My studies on this subject do not relate to New Zealand alone, but it will suffice for this purpose and the House's purpose to confine what I have to say to New Zealand. In the early months of 1967 my noble Friend Lord George-Brown and I had intensive talks, lasting many days, with each of the Heads of Government of the Six. Following that, we reported on each of those discussions, in full detail, to our Cabinet colleagues. My noble Friend and I went further. We made a joint recommendation to our colleagues that we should make an application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome for entry into the European Communities. All this was public knowledge at the time.…

…If you are opposed to entry on principle, then the question of terms hardly arises. As I say, for myself in the middle ground, the terms present some real difficulties. The Labour Government laid down four principal conditions: first, the terms affecting the balance of payments; secondly, the question of capital movements; third, guarantees to the sugar producers; and, fourth, long-term trade with New Zealand. So far as the last two conditions are concerned, Her Majesty's Government have obtained, on the face of it, what appear to be satisfactory agreements, sufficiently satisfactory for no Commonwealth Government publicly to criticise them. I think it will be agreed that an offer to New Zealand of safeguards phrased like the safeguards offered to the sugar producers would not have been acceptable to our Parliament or to New Zealand. It was undoubtedly clever strategy to leave New Zealand to the last; and to obtain a more closely worded and specific commitment than was possible for the sugar producers.…

…However, if we give preferential treatment to other countries, as we must if we join the Community, they will have preference and we shall have to differentiate against our traditional food suppliers. This policy—this is not propaganda; it is the choice that hon. Members have to make—will inevitably harm our traditional food suppliers, the Commonwealth. It will harm New Zealand in particular. I had hoped that we could debate an Amendment dealing with New Zealand's position, but it was not selected. I should like to deploy at greater length on that Amendment the case for New Zealand, as I should like to have done for our fisheries. Spelled out in the Government's White Paper is the effect that the Community will have on New Zealand products. The quantities for New Zealand products are set out in Protocol 18 of the Treaty of Accession, Part I. I will give those for butter for the first five years. The quantities will show a decline.…

BARONESS WHITE : I, on the contrary, should like very strongly to support my noble friend in this Amendment and in what he said, because I do not take such an optimistic view as the noble Lord who has just spoken. Those of us who have some connections with people in New Zealand, including those who are in public office, know that although it is quite true that the Prime Minister of New Zealand at the time expressed himself as being reasonably satisfied, there were many other people in New Zealand who were far from satisfied and had considerable apprehensions as to what might happen in the longer term. Because, in spite of the most strenuous efforts—and I grant that they were strenuous efforts—on the part of the Government negotiators, what they have obtained is an interim arrangement; and we are concerned with what may happen in the longer run.…

…Incidentally, he served nine years on the staff of Westminster Abbey during the 1950s and then spent eight years back in Melbourne and is now back here. His son aged 22 is finishing at his university shortly and then must return to Australia within six months. He happened to be born in Melbourne but has spent practically all the years of his life in this country." Is such treatment necessary? Does it make sense? Or take the case of a young New Zealand solicitor who is a non-patrial. He writes: "I am a solicitor, and normally my wife and I do not dress in what might be regarded as "hippie" fashion. Yet on almost every occasion when we have passed through the Immigration Department on returning from holidays on the Continent we have had an unpleasant experience. A typical occasion was when returning to this country from Holland at Christmas time via Harwich, we were told by the port immigration official on duty that as a married couple we were not allowed in this country on a working holiday and should therefore have approached Immigration singly 1404 and separately.…

…The first is because this is my maiden speech; and I am setting a precedent in a maiden speech, in that I must leave before the end of the debate to speak at a dinner to which I had accepted an invitation even before I was a Member of your Lordships' House. Then, I must declare an interest in that my father's father went to New Zealand as Governor in 1871; my mother's father went in 1892; my father went as Governor-General in 1924, and I myself in 1962. It would be incredible, therefore, if I were not to have strong feelings in this subject which your Lordships are now debating. And before the charge is laid, I would plead "not guilty" to jumping on any recent bandwagon, because I have been hammering away at this subject ever since the 1962 Act was passed. I have been very worried about it.…

…I must welcome the concessions that have been made, particularly the apparent increase in flexibility in the application of some of the regulations to Commonwealth people. I think we would be very foolish if we did not realise how much damage has been done to the relations between Britain, Australia and New Zealand in particular by the introduction of the combined rules, lumping, as it were, aliens and Commonwealth citizens together. After all, it should have been obvious that the aliens were not going to say with great delight "We are all being treated as Commonwealth citizens." It would have been equally obvious that the Commonwealth citizens would have said "Look, we are now being treated as aliens." There was very strong feeling.…

Mr. Dalyell : That is another candidate. Why do it in someone else's back yard and not one's own? If scientific knowledge has advanced since 1966, so have the political circumstances. Australia and New Zealand, which were acquiescent and agnostic for two decades of testing, have now become so alarmed that they have gone successfully to the International Court at The Hague on this important issue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), a former Attorney-General, can obviously speak on that matter with more authority that than I can ever hope to have, so I leave the Hague decision to him. We should not be deluded into thinking that the change in attitude of the Australian and New Zealand Governments is simply a result of a change of their political complexion.…

…We cannot debate the substance of the matter in any meaningful sense. The Minister of State has indicated that the proposition was put forward tentatively some time ago as a basis of discussion. I have no idea whether these figures hold in the current negotiations. In the light of supplies from New Zealand in 197475, the figures the Minister of State quoted, beginning with 129,000 tonnes in 1978, do not seem to be unreasonable. They seem to be on the right lines. Last year more than a quarter of the butter imported into the United Kingdom came from New Zealand. That is a trade we wish to continue. I might add that it 1164 is cheaper butter as well and the British consumers are very grateful for that.…

Mr. Peart : It is no good saying "Rubbish". I have had many discussions with the new Zealand Government, and I have always been a great defender of New Zealand. Some people think that I am half Kiwi. I shall do all I can to defend New Zealand. I have been in close contact with the New Zealand Government throughout the discussions. Yesterday the New Zealand Ambassador was in Brussels and I had consultations with him. I assured the New Zealand Prime Minister that we would do all we could, and New Zealand appreciates the action that we have taken. No commitment has been made, and we shall discuss details later. We have secured a fair deal on sugar. We got that at the Lomé Convention.…

…Even the Commission recognises the fact that a vast range of basic foodstuffs is far more expensive now inside the Community than it is in the world outside. 793 If hon. Members are not content to accept the statements made by the Commission, let them ask the British Government. They will find, for example, that we are simply not allowed to import beef from cheap producers abroad: that we pay a duty of 16 per cent. on imports of New Zealand lamb, which duty will rise to 20 per cent. next year; and that on imports of New Zealand butter and cheese we pay import levies amounting to 9p a pound for butter and 12p a pound for cheese. That is the figure that applies to the special regime that was negotiated for New Zealand. It applies only part way through a transition period, and it is a figure that is net of monetary compensatory amounts. Let us dispose once and for all of the ridiculous argument that monetary compensatory amounts are a net gain. They are a small discount on a substantially increased price which we do not need to pay.…

Mr. Peart : I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should be contentious about this matter. The Community has always recognised a continuing commitment to find room for New Zealand's imports into its market. The Community is pledged to agree this autumn on measures designed to bring the milk products market into better balance and to rectify the surplus situation. I cannot go beyond that. I think that this is a very good deal for New Zealand. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand made a magnificent statement on this matter. He said that the agreement protects New Zealand's interests, and added: "I am particularly grateful for the understanding and support received from the British Government and the EEC Commission.…

…us of 3 million tonnes of beet-grown sugar, when we all know that the Third World, which has, in some cases, not much else to produce, could well export that to Europe and we could dispense with some of our own production. A country such as Malaysia is virtually stopped from sending us canned fruit. It has to pay up to 24 per cent. levy on the value of canned fruit that it exports to this country, particularly if it contains sugar. Australia and New Zealand have been mentioned. Australia has virtually ceased to export beef to this country. The public may not realise that, but that is so. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Devon, West to ask where the surpluses are. I agree that they may be difficult to demonstrate, because, of course, what happens is that the beef is not produced and the milk is not produced. Farmers go out of farming. Land goes out of production. If there is no assured market, if there is no demand and if there are tariffs in Europe, the food is not produced at all—cheaply though it can be produced.…

…The Commission consider that, to achieve free inter-Community trade, an organisation or common measure is required to prevent the market disruption that would follow if the French import control system was removed immediately. If, therefore, there has to be a Common Market measure, the Government agree fully with the Committee that any régime must take account of the needs of EEC producers and consumers, and also New Zealand. I agree fully with what was said today about New Zealand by almost every noble Lord. I shall also deal with that later. Like the Committee, we welcome the Commission's declaration on the safeguard clause. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to this as did the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. The Government will need to be vigilant to ensure that it is only operated with due regard to the EEC responsibilities under GATT. We are heartened by the Commissions' approach for a market-related measure because any artificially-forced increases in prices would clearly damage our substantial consumer interests.…

…Therefore, between 1975 and 1980 production in this country has risen from about 40,000 tonnes to more than 160,000 tonnes. That is the first and major change. Our own domestic producers, cushioned by the over-high price within the CAP, have expanded their production massively. They have now invested large sums in creameries and butter manufacturing capacity. It was suggested earlier that we should allow twice as much butter to come in from New Zealand. That is worrying, because it would mean that we would import 180,000 tonnes from New Zealand, produce 170,000 tonnes ourselves, and consume only 300,000 tonnes at present price levels. Alternatively, one would have to drop the price levels, but if one did that one would have to spend money to support the British farmer and the butter manufacturers at the same time. Therefore, problems arise. Another curious aspect of the situation in 1980 is that Britain is now a net 976 exporter of butter to France.…

Earl Ferrers : My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's concern. In 1973 the imports of New Zealand butter were 165,811 tonnes; in 1977 they dropped to 138,176 tonnes; in 1981, they were 94,000 tonnes and in 1982 they were 92,000 tonnes. The noble Lord will be aware that the arrangements always did entail a cut in New Zealand supplies to Europe. But, on the other hand, the noble Lord will be aware also that there has been a decrease in the amount of butter consumed and that over the period between 1975 and 1981 the sales of New Zealand butter on the United Kingdom market declined by only 7.3 per cent., whereas the consumption in the United Kingdom as a whole declined by 31 per cent.…

…I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate he will give me that assurance. I accept the NFU's claim that the Commission's proposals discriminate against British lamb producers and consumers. I am alarmed that the NFU should give its support to the Commission's proposals to cut the level of New Zealand lamb imports. Historic ties of friendship exist between Britain and New Zealand, strengthened by two world wars. Pledges underlie such ties and I do not believe that they can be brushed aside. 1079 Lamb and mutton is one of the rare commodities about which the CAP has not encouraged unwanted overproduction. The pre-war and immediate post-war availability of assured supplies of quality New Zealand lamb to our market are principally responsible for the maintenance of a large market and a public taste throughout the year for lamb. British producers have never provided more than a thin slice of total supplies.…

Dr. David Clark (South Shields) : The Minister rightly said that this is probably an issue which will prove quite divisive and lively. We have had some good debates on it. It stirs many emotions. I do not apologise for that. The House knows that politics is not always determined by logic. Sometimes it is determined by emotion. Many of us feel that we owe a debt of gratitude to the New Zealand people. Some of us remember that, in the early 1970s, when we were arguing the case against our entry into the EEC, one of our greatest worries was what the status of New Zealand would be. Many of us were very pleased that we were able to achieve protocol 18 of the 1972 accession legislation, which gave some continuity and hope to New Zealand dairying. The New Zealanders have adapted remarkably. They now send considerably less butter to Britain than they did in 1972. According to a parliamentary answer given to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 2 February, in 1986, 27 per cent.…

…In elaborating on the reasons why the system should not be changed, I shall build somewhat on the comments of the right hon. Gentleman—although I shall not advert to the philosopher's stone. He mentioned some of the comments of the Electoral Reform Society. I should like to share with the House some of the comments made by the society on the elections in New Zealand, about which we have heard much in this debate. On the first election in New Zealand held under a proportional representation system, the Electoral Reform Society said: "On the negative side many New Zealanders are unhappy that the system has not led to a more consensus based politics. Many politicians are still operating under a first past the post mindset. "There is also a feeling that New Zealand First" to which the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr.…

In the last 20 years, the following people from countries of the Commonwealth other than the UK have been accorded membership of the Privy Council: Privy Councillor Duncan MacIntyre New Zealand Lancelot Raymond Adams-Schneider New Zealand Sir Duncan McMullin 1 New Zealand Edward Phillip George Seaga Jamaica Sir Julius Chan Papua New Guinea Allan Louisy Saint Lucia Robert Milton Cato St. Vincent and the Grenadines David Spence Thomson New Zealand Sir Edward Somers 1 New Zealand Sir Zelman Cowen Australia George Cadle Price Belize Tomasi Puapua Tuvalu Vere Cornwall Bird Antigua and Barbuda John George Meluin Compton St. Lucia David Lange New Zealand Kennedy Alphonse Simmonds St.…

Frozen beef, Australian and New Zealand, [760] 224–5 .