BUSINESSMEN DISCUSS VISIT BY PARLIAMENT

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27989, 8 June 1956, Page 12

BUSINESSMEN DISCUSS VISIT BY PARLIAMENT

Whether members of Parliament should be invited to Canterbury to see the province’s needs, as they saw Auckland’s problems and plans, engaged the attention of members of the council of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce last evening They agreed that as a preliminary it wa' necessary that there should be a coordinated plan for solution of the district’s problems; and it was only by two votes that they decided that when the plan was completed, members of Parliament should be invited.

Was the plan a good idea, who should meet the expense and who should organise the proposed tour? were questions put by the president (Mr W. G. V. Fernie).

“I think the plan is not a good one at present,” said Mr R. C Neville. “I think it would be a good idea if we could ask them here and show them our problems and how we propose to tackle them, but it is no good going to the Government like spoilt children and saying we want this or that.”

Mr Neville proposed that there Should first be a scheme itemising what was needed in Canterbury, and a decision on what was to be done about those needs.

“It is time we got down to planning so that we have something to show Parliament,” said Mr E. F. Ward. “There may be some members of Parliament who have never even visited the South Island. Unless we show them what we want and fight our battles, we will miss out very badly.” Mr J. Boyd-Clark questioned the need for a visit- “The average citizen votes for someone who will do the best he can for New Zealand.” he said. “If we have to get to the stage where we have to bribe the men in Parliament to come to our local area to give us a bridge or a sewerage scheme, then I think we are on the wrong track. If everyone in the country is going to ask all members of Parliament to go round and see their local schemes, we will be in a greater fog than ever before. AU we have to ask is that the people we put in Parliament will use their sound judgment, and not their votebuying judgment.”

’The Chamber of Commerce stood

for private enterprise and competition, Mr J. Roy Smith commented. If Auckland was going to start “a party of this kind,” Canterbury had to play its part and see that it was not “left behind in the rush.” But to bring members of Parliament south and have them find that the local administrators did not know what they wanted would be tragic, he said. He proposed that the chamber should wait on the Mayor (Mr R. M. Macfarlane, M.P.) asking him to call a conference which could arrange for a plan of projects for Canterbury to be prepared in preparation for a visit by members of Parliament, the visit to be made after plans had been completed.

Mr F. W. Petre favoured that proposal, and put forward the Lyttelton tunnel road scheme as one on which there should be co-ordination of planning. The project, he said, involved side issues such as the Colombo street overhead bridge, northern and southern outlets to the city and by-pass roads.

Mr B. J. Drake saw the proposal as an excellent idea for obtaining something constructive for the planning of Canterbury’s projects, but said it seemed futile to ask ordinary members of Parliament to visit the district “because they have no say as to how public money is spent. They have to follow the party line,” ne said.

The organisation to handle the proposal was the Canterbury Progress League, Mr R. A. Witbrock suggested. The tunnel road project was probably “the soundest scheme in New Zealand today, bar none,” Mr BoydClark said, “and I think the members of Parliament realise that. If we ask them to look at some other silly scheme half-way between Timaru and Timbuktu, then we are going to rum the good work we have done already.” Mr E. T. -Beaven said the city was obviously unprepared for a visit. The first thing the Government would ask would be: “What do you want first?” and Canterbury itself must first decide on priorities. An amendment proposing a conference to form proposals and without reference to a visit by Parliamentarians was then put and lost by 13 votes to 11.