Left Wing

In the Debating Society for some years it had been the practice to include in the year's programme of activities a debate with the Social Democratic Party—an organisation which constituted the Left Wing of the Labour Party. The Social Democratic Party was invited to nominate two speakers to move and second a motion dealing with some aspect of the Socialist objective of the Party. They were opposed by two student speakers and the discussion which followed the addresses of the principal speakers was thrown open both to visiting members of the Social Democratic Party and to students. These debates aroused considerable interest, attracted large audiences and proved the highlight of the debating season.

So successful were the debates with the Social Democratic Party that out of this at a later stage there emerged the practice of inviting visiting speakers from other organisations to participate in debates on subjects in which they were interested. A visiting speaker was invited to support a motion moved by a student member of the Society, while another visiting speaker from an opposing organisation would support the principal student speaker in opposition to the motion. For example, a motion "That the Labour Party is fit to govern" moved by a student was supported by a prominent Labour Member of Parliament, the opposition receiving the support of a member of the Reform Party. A motion of this nature would be regarded as relatively innocuous today but it must be remembered that in those days the Labour Party was not as respectable as it is today. When the vote taken revealed that the opinion of students of the Debating Society was decisively in favour of the motion, this could hardly be expected to be viewed favourably by the Press and other defenders of the existing order of things.

Another debate which evoked considerable interest centred round a proposal— "That the Navy League should no longer be permitted access to the schools". Although the popular opinion found it impossible to conceive any other point of view than that actively propagated by the Navy League, there were in fact other organisations holding opposing views, such as the New Zealand National Peace Council. That either or both of these organisations should be permitted free access to our schools, making the minds of the children the battleground of opposing political opinions, did not seem to some to be in the best interests of education. Much worse would it be to permit only one philosophy to be presented to children, leaving the opposing opinion entirely unrepresented. A well-known organiser and lecturer for the Navy League supported the opposition in the debate, while an adherent of the opposing point of view to that of the Navy League spoke in favour of the proposal. I well remember the consternation with which the organiser for the League viewed the spectacle of student after student mounting the platform to advocate the exclusion of the Navy League from our schools. To one who had found it so easy to influence the minds of school children it seemed incomprehensible that University students should range themselves in opposition to the Navy League, When the Press published the fact that a vote of students had supported the exclusion of the Navy League from the schools, needless to say orthodox opinion was horrified. One interesting development was that Lord Jellicoe, who was then Governor-General, intimated that he no longer wished to remain patron of the Society. The executive of the Debating Society were not deterred from the policy of encouraging the free expression of opinion.

Another public debate related to a proposal favouring the restoration of full civic rights to conscientious objectors of World War I, supported by J. A. Lee, D.C.M., and Bill Jordan as he then was, both returned servicemen of that war.

Another interesting incident of the period related to the right of free expression of opinion occurred when a student who was a member of the Communist Party—Miss Hetty Weitzel—was convicted for an offence involving the distribution of Communist literature. A number of students who attended the hearing of the case in the Magistrate's Court, feeling that this was, an infringement of the rights of free speech, took up a collection outside the Court and paid the fine. The collection did not escape the notice of the newspaper reporters and publication of the incident, with consequent newspaper editorials and publication of letters from "Pro Bono Publico", "Anti-Communist" and so forth, led to a College enquiry into the distribution of so-called seditious and prohibited literature at the University. The result of the enquiry did nothing to binder the expression of student opinion.