ANNUAL CONFERENCE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 15, 28 October 1932, Page 6

ANNUAL CONFERENCE

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE MEET STATE LENDING DEPARTMENTS. \ ADVOCACY OF ABOLITION. (Per Press Association). DUNEDIN, This Day. The annual conference of the Associated- Chambers of Commerce was resumed this morning. Auckland presented a xemit. through Mr Harvey Turner, urging on the Government the desirability of bringing about a reduction in the trade barriers between Australia and New Zealand and endeavouring to negotiate with other countries on a suitable reciprocal basis. The speaker referred to the barriers between Australia and New Zealand on. potatoes and fruit particularly. It seemed ridiculous that these two countries could not work on a better trade basis. The position seemed to be that the two countries feel aggrieved at each other's attitude. He also felt that the time had arrived when the Dominion should try to open up reciprocal trade with other countries, otherwise it might stand by itself and live within itself.

Mr W. Machin said he thought they should support the remit. They might negotiate with the Associated Chambers of Australia, and if they got anywhere they could then negotiate with the respective Governments. The remit was adopted.

It was alsodeeided to refer the question to the executive to see if something could be done in the lines suggested by Mr Machin. Mr Machin said they had received a cablegram from the Associated Chambers ofi Australia wishing the conference every success.

Mr Stronach Paterson moved a remit from the executive, asking the Government to withdraw from lending on land and property and leave it to private enterprise. He said that State lending, had had disastrous results to the taxpayers. The asking of a moratorium to the Public Trustee for local bodies' sinking funds indicated the position in which the country's finances had got. Mr A. F. Wright said they should obtain fiill information of the pesition regarding State lending'. Mr F. H. Bass questioned whether they could get sufficient money from private enterprise. Mr P. O. Smellie said that at the end of March, 932,. interest owing to the State Advances Department came to £940,000, and he doubted if it could be recovered. Instead of the losses being placed on bondholders it was being transferred to the whole body of taxpayers. He said there was no reason why the State Advances Department should not be ultimately liquidated, and he moved an addition to the remit as follows: "That this conference considers that no new money should be provided for the State lending departments, and that the State Advances Act and its amendments of 1913 be immediately repealed."

Mr Maehin said that the first mortgagee found sometimes that owing to the Government's priority lie was only the fourth mortgagee. The State Advances Department was to-day competing for the business of farmers, and yet it had no money. There was a confusion of interests. The Government departed from recognised principles and the road to Hell was easy. Mr Paterson said he was prepared to accept the amendment. There was plenty of private money available for all the legitimate requirements of the borrowing on land. Mr Wright said that the Government should confine itself to government—not to trading.

The remit, as amended, was adopted. A remit asking the Government to appoint two well-experienced commercial men to visit the forthcoming Exhibition at Shanghai, and to visit other, portions of the East with a view to opening up direct trade, was withdrawn.

Mr Stronach Paterson pointed out that if there were opportunities, private enterprise could be relied on to take them.

Mr A. M. Seaman (Auckland) presented a remit suggesting that the Government introduce a downward revision of the tariff on both British and foreign goods, removal of the duty surtax, removal of restrictions and embargoes on the import and export of certain commodities, and curtailment of powers granted by Order-in-Oouncd to Customs and other depax*tments which result in uncertainty in trade and inevitably hinder commerce. Mr Seaman said the position was that all countries were now sellers, not buyers. As soon as there was danger of someone climbing over the tariff wall it was built up further. Mr A. H. Allen said that if a duty of 200 or 300 per cent, were imposed they would not be able to keep out Japanese footwear. Some other method other than Customs would have to be adopted to deal" with that country. Mr Stronach Paterson said the remit was enumerating general principles. He would say from long experience of the Customs ' Department that.no department carried out its duties so carefully, so impartially' and so justly as the Customs Department. (Hear, hear.) At the same time, it was another barrier to international trade to place in the hands of an individual powers which might at any time operate against international trade. Mr T. C. Ross asked what clause 1 meant. Did it mean that the tariff would ultimately be abolished? Voices: Yes.

Mr Ross said that in 1931 the Customs revenue had supplied £7,000,000. If the £7,000,000 had to be found by income it would prove very awkward for them. All the country still required seasonable protection. A large amount of capital was invested in secondary industries and if they were wiped out employees would have to find work elsewhere. . The remit was adopted with the alteration that it was decided to urge on the Government "as a general principle," to carry out the clauses. In the remit the word "discriminating" was inserted before the words "downward revision." and the word "vexatious" before the words "powers .granted."

Mr W. Bothrell (Canterbury) submitted the following remit: "That this conference is convinced that the restrictive provisions ofi the Board of Trade Act and Commercial Trusts and Cost of Living Acts operate to the detriment of business and the community generally, and therefore urges on the Government the immediate repeal of these Acts."

' On the suggestion of Mr Stronach Paterson the words after the word "Government" were deleted and the following words added: "Their radical amendment on the lines recently presented to the Government by a deputation sponsored by this association." The remit was adopted. Mr A. M. Seaman, on behalf of the Hamilton Chamber, moved a remit urging abolition, at the earliest possible date, of. all wheat duties. He said that the Auckland Association had not brought forward a similar remit because it thought it. unlikely it would be given impartial and unbiassed consideration. (Laughter). The remit was not in accord with his own views or those of his chamber. There was no discussion and the chairman said the remit was unanimously rejected. Mr Hamilton also submitted a remit protesting against the action of the Government in placing the sole power of handling and distributing of milling wheat imported by it in the hands of the Wheat Marketing Board. Mr A. F. Wright read a lengthy communication from the board covering the whole transaction regarding the importation. The beard had made no charge for its services and had made no profit. The remit was withdrawn with unanimous approval. A remit that, in the opinion of the conference, the time has arrived when the necessity for registration of all hire and customary purchase agreements of chattels should be reimposed was rejected. Mr A. S. Burgess {Wanganui) was elected president for the ensuing year and Mr J. P. Luke (Wellington) vicepresident.