GRADUAL PROGRESS

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 33, 2 November 1934, Page 5

GRADUAL PROGRESS

Dominion’s Improvement NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Dominion Special Service. Christchurch, November 1. “There bus been disappointment in many quarters that the progress has not been more rapid, but, as a meteoric, rise is lass likely to be sustained, it is probably a matter more for congratulation than for despondency that the movement is a gradual one,” said _Mr. A. M. Seaman, president of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, speaking on New Zealand’s economic recovery at the annual Dominion conference in Christchurch to-day. A year ago his predecessor in office made reference to the improvement that had been then apparent in the economic and trade conditions in Great Britain, and drew comfort from that fact in his consideration of the outlook for the Dominion, Mr. Seaman said. During the intervening year the position in Great Britain appeared to have further consolidated, in sharp contradistinction to the conditions in many others of the leading countries. Unfortunately from New Zealand’s point of view, some of the British improvement had arisen from the working out of Major Elliot’s plans for greater national self-sufficiency in agricultural and pastoral products, with tlie consequence that New Zealand’s export trade had not received that fillip which had been hoped for.

Despite that fact, however, there had been a freer movement of money in trading circles, and in almost all directions a healthier condition of affairs was reported. This year’s budget, showing as it did an encouraging increase in revenue was a pleasing confirmation of the general improvement which all business men had sensed, but of which they had not felt wholly sure. There had been also a small reduction in the numbers dependent on the unemployment funds. It was, he thought, a fair criticism to say that while most business men had made considerable sacrifices in their efforts to maintain in employment as many’ as possible of their own staffs, relatively few had given much attention or practical thought to the problems of national rehabilitation.. There had been more evidence of criticism of the policy and methods of the Unemployment Board than of constructive thought that had for its object the removal of the need for that board.