Diversity of ideas, opinions and points of view was the prominent feature of the second Vic. debate of the year. Altogether, 19 speakers expanded the many aspects of the proposition "That Europeans Should Go Back to Europe."

Tamasese opened for the affirmative and out of much eloquence brought forward the argument that Europeans in New Zealand ought to go back — perhaps not permanently — so that they might see New Zealanders as they really are and cause less prejudice in N.Z.

Hamilton led the negative and having mildly reprimanded Tamasese for his "severe mouthings" pointed out that there was no reason why Europeans (who were not definable) should go back to Europe (also indefinable) since they were doing perfectly well where they were.

Hordes of the East

With a highly charged oratorical outburst O'Brien emphasised that Europe was the last bastion between the hordes of the East and the New World, and that there was nobody better suited to act as the buffer than the inferior European.

Bromby, second for the negative, pointed out that Europeans brought higher standards of living and skill to New Zealand, hence they were valuable economically and socially.

The variety of opinion was increased by speakers from the floor:—

Hogg spoke for the worker and was well aware of the threat to New Zealand's high rate of employment and low rate of suicide.

Sex Balance Upset

March wanted the upset of the sex balance in Europe corrected.

Miss Frost was convinced that Europeans should migrate to the European Economic Community and leave the fat of the land to less fortunate people.

Middleton thought they should go back because that was where their hearts were.

Prusad held that the proposition was condemned since it relied on racial discrimination.

Schultz maintained that New Zealand should keep the Europeans to pick their brains.

And Miss Boyle disagreed with all who had spoken and thought they should have to stay only as there was no reason for them to go.

Neither side in its summing up was able to impose much order on the mass of material and both were satisfied to break one or two of the opposing arguments and reassert their own.

Lack of Matter

The adjudicator, Mr O'Brien noted that the debating was in its usual form and that the speakers seemed fluent and in general able to speak without notes. He reminded the house that a person should have something to say if he was going to speak and this meant some preparation.

The motion was defeated 23-31 by the whole house and 16-27 by the student vote.

Placings: 1, Hamilton; 2, Hogg; 3, Tamasese; 4, Middleton.

Watch for Dr. Sasse