PRIVILEGE BREACH

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 29, 28 October 1932, Page 10

PRIVILEGE BREACH

National Expenditure Commission Report COMMERCIAL PROTEST By Telegraph.—Press Association. Dimedin, Oct. 27. The conference of the Associated Chambers of Commerce went into committee to-day to answer the attitude taken up by Parliament with respect to the action of Mr. A. Macintosh, a member of the National Expenditure Commission, who presented an addendum to the' Commission’s report in which he made certain allegations against members of Parliament. The following resolution was adopted : “This conference unanimously protests against the action proposed to be taken against a member of the National Expenditure Commission on the following grounds:— “(1) That the Commission was appointed by the representative of his Majesty the King for the express purpose of reviewing and reporting on public expenditure in all its aspects, and that the remarks published were undoubtedly within the terms of reference. “(2) That in the opinion of this conference it is of the utmost importance in the public interest that where matters are referred to a Royal Commission each member of such Commission should be free to express himself freely and frankly according to the evidence brought before the Commission. “(3) That if action is taken it will be impossible to get men of the right stamp to undertake similar work in the public interest. | “(4) That if criticism of Parliament is to be a breach of privilege, one of the most fundamental principles of British liberty will be violated. "(5) That it is also essential in the public Interest that the newspapers should be free to express criticism of Parliamentary action when necessary.” Report Welcomed. Some discussion afterward took place on a remit which welcomed the second report of the National Expenditure Commission and expressed the hope that the Government would at once take steps to carry out its re commendations. Mr. Stronach Paterson said the report was the finest thing of its kind that had been produced in this country. He did not suggest that every recommendation should be immediately put into force, but if the Government neglected any recommendation it should justify its neglect. “If we neglect to support the Commission,” said Mr. Machin, “we will lose the finest opportunity we could possibly have hoped for, and waste the work of the chambers over many years. It Is a wonderful report.” Mr. Paterson moved as an amendment “That the conference urges on the Government that if it decides that any of the recommendations of the Commission cannot be given effect to, such recommendations be referred back for a further report.” Mr. A. F. Wright said the Commission had made its report and was dead. If the amendment was passed the Commission would have to be reconstituted. Transfer Criticised. Mr. D. Ruttledge (Invercargill) said he thought that where a Government department was paying it should not be interfered with. The Commission recommended that the Lands and Deeds Department should be transferred from Invercargill to Dunedin, but it was paying. Mr. Machin: A very happy position. Mr. Wright said the commission recommended that the Departments of Lands, Deeds and Stamps should be confined to the four centres. There was to be a saving by the transfer of £6OOO. He deprecated bringing in sectional interests. Mr. P. O. Smellie said the report should be the “book of words” for every chamber of commerce. The remit waa adopted, with the addition of the amendment moved by Mr. Paterson, altered to read: “But that no recommendation from the Commission be disregarded without being referred back to the same Commission for a further report.”