CRITICISM OF DELEGATES

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22082, 3 May 1937, Page 10

CRITICISM OF DELEGATES

CONFERENCE ON TUNNEL ROAD TRAMWAY BOARD IN UPROAR ACTION CONFIRMED AFTER CLOSE DIVISION With the meeting at times In an uproar as several members attempted to speak at the same time, an effort was made on Saturday morning to censure the Christchurch Tramway Board’s delegates to the tunnel road conference. Two members alleged that the delegates, Messrs G. Manning and R. M. Macfarlane, had exceeded their authority in voting for the proposal when it became known that the Government would not provide all the money, it being claimed that the board had decided to support the tunnel road scheme only on condition that the Government paid the total cost. When the chairman attempted to put motions to the meeting after the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce and the constitution of the conference had also been criticised, members shouted across the table at each other, and the chairman (Mr Manning) restored order only by clanging his bell and thumping his fist on the table. At’ the end of the meeting the board confirmed the actions of its delegates, those two voting for the motion to give a majority of five to four. After the chairman and Mr Macfarlane had given a report on the conference various members referred to the constitution of the conference and the mention of a referendum. “I am' disappointed with our delegates,” said Mr J. S. Barr. “The board’s definite instruction was to support the scheme provided that the Government would finance it altogether.” Several voices: No, no. Mr Barr: I am reading from the minutes of the meeting of the board. Constitution of Conference “In the absence of the Prime Minister,” he added, “Mr J. Wood (Engin-eer-in-Chief to the Public Works Department) said definitely that the Government would not find all the finance for the scheme. Great as our Prime Minister is, and he is the greatest we have ever had, he is not a dictator; he is not a Mussolini. “If the Government Is financing the scheme it does not affect the local bodies one iota,” he continued. "I cannot see why a self-appointed body like the Chamber of Commerce, who, by the way, have never discussed this tunnel road scheme, should be approached by the Prime Minister. He should have gone to the leading local body in the district, the Christchurch City Council. It should have been the duty of whoever convened the conference to convene a conference of every local body interested, and according in the press, not even the majority were included in the conference. My opinion and the bulk of public opinion is against the scheme.” i I) “I see no good in arousing disharmony after the decision has been made,” said Mr J. Mathison. “It was one of the most elective conferences ever held here and was representative of most of the public.” Mr H. E. Denton declared that Lyttelton had been going back 'for many years. Mr A. A. McLachlan: And Christchurch with it. The tunnel road would put Lyttelton on the map, Mr Denton added. “The tunnel road should have been gone into many years ago,” he said. We have all been asleep, and we are just waking up out of our doldrums.” "Deputation Misleading” “The deputation from the Chamber of Commerce, which waited upon some local bodies, was definitely misleading,” declared Mr E. Parlane. “My own union, the Drivers’ Union, was definitely told that the Prime Minister had said that the money was there to do the job. If it came to another vote I am sure the union would reverse its vote.” “This talk of referendum sounds as though it has just come from the heart of a Tory Government,” remarked the chairman. “We thought the money was there to be had.” Mr Mathison moved that the action of the delegates be endorsed, and their report received, “This body was not one of the local bodies influenced by the bait of a little cheap money from the Government,” said Mr McLachlan. “I am sorry this resolution has been moved,” declared Mr J. K, Archer. “I disagree with it. The delegates exceeded their duties and went further than they had a right to do. There is no doubt that the deputation from the Chamber of Commerce, if it was from the Chamber of Commerce, emphasised primarily that the whole of the money was going to be found by the Government. The chairman adopted the attitude that he had a free hand, but he did not have if free hand.” Mr Macfarlane: He should have had a free hand. Mr Archer: But he did not have it. The chairman explained that he had endeavoured to interpret the attitude of the board. “I am amazed to find Mr Archer, the old democrat, that he has been, speakm£vas, h e has,” said Mr Mathison. Mr W. J. Walter: What position am 1 in: like?* chalrman: An y Position you tv,^in? ar <. r an amendment that *he report of the delegates be received For a few moments the meeting became an uproar, and when the chairitian regained order two separate motions were put to the meeting. The first, receiving the report, was passed unanimously. „* o il th ®. s , ecol } d - endorsing the actions S? Resales, the meeting was divided, five voting for the motion and four against it. Those supporting the motion were the delegates themselves and Messrs McLachlan, Denton, and Mathison, and those opposing it were Messrs Walter. Archer. Parlane, and