CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 May 1931, Page 5

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

MONTHLY MEETING HELD. The monthly meeting of the Greymouth Chamber of Commerce, held yesterday afternoon, was attended by Messrs P. J. McLean (Chairman), J. W. Greenslade,-F. W. Shallcrass, W. B. Cunningham, T. E. Coates and A. I. Flett. Apologies for absence were received from Messrs F. A. Kitchingham, A. M. Carroll, T. A. W. Tate, A. Naylor, and J. S. Robertson. The Chairman extended a welcome to Mr Flett, the newly-appointed Chief Postmaster. They appreciated his attendance, and hoped, that he would continue the good work of his predecessor, Mr Clark. Mr Flett returned thanks, and assured /members that, even if he did not talk much, he would take a keen interest in matters affecting the district.

Arising out of the outward correspondence, the Chairman stated that he was present at the meeting of the ■Unemployment Committee, which was going into the question of immigration from Australia, with a view to counteracting it as much as possible, as the immigrants were adding to the number of unemployed. The Minister of Internal Affairs had passed op the representations to the Minister of Immigration, but the latter had not yet replied. Mr McLean reported that Mr Greenslade and himself, as members of the committee appointed by the Chamber in connection with the establishment of a broadcasting station at Greymouth, had attended the official opening this week. '

With regard, to the cultivation of pakihi lands on the West Coast, he stated that the Fields Instructor had full information, and would be glad to give the Chamber any assistance. Personally, said Mr McLean, he thought there were other lands‘on the West Coast which could be broken in at 'less expense. The pakihi system was expensive. Mr Greenslade: All we wanted was information, anyway. The following telegram was received from the Palmerston North Chamber of Commerce: “This Chamber holding public meeting, approving proposals Prime Minister regarding National Government. -Hope your Chamber will do same.”

The Chairman: I think myself that it -is an opportune time for all parties to get together in the interests of the country. In times of stress, such as we have, it would be a very fine thing if the different parties in the House could come together, and let party, politics sink in the meantime. I don’t know whether this Chamber would have any great weight. Mr Cunningham: I am afraid not. Mr Greenslade said that he did not; like to express an opinion offhand. A National Government was a question to be gone into carefully. Mr Shallcrass said that he got the impression, from Mr Forbes’ state--men-t, that the Government, after be-; ing assisted by the Labour Party, now, wanted to drop them. The matter was difficult, said the. Chairman. In any case, he added, the: Chamber was not a political body. I Various remits from the Associated Chambers of Commerce were received, and allowed to lie on the table. ITINERANT TRADERS. The Chairman reported that (the; license f ees for itinerant traders werefixed by statute at £5 per year, and. therefore the Chamber was ■ unable to have them increased-at Greymouth. Mr Greenslade said that, even if the Borough Council made a higher charge, ttye matter might 'be contested.; and they might have to refund the; extra money. Something should be ; done in the direction of raising the fee, however. People were here again, bringing “surplus rags and rubbish” to Greymouth, to be sold to the detriment of local -business people. Mr. Cunningham: Competition is thei father of trade, you know. Every-; body has competition in this world. Mr Greenslade: What we want is—- “ Fair competition,” interjected Mr: Shallcrass. , . J

Mr Greenslade agreed, and said that people who were living in the town, legitimate traders, should be supported.

The Chairman: It is unfortunate, but I thftik the Borough Council have {tried to do their very best. Mr Shallcrass: You can make a cliarsc ? j “Yes,” replied Mr Greenslade. Mr Shallcrass: Then why don’t you. bluff them? It was pointed out that “bluff” might not be successful, and a refund would then be necessary. COAL HOPPERS. The Chanrman reported upon the representations made to the Government with a view to securing 200 additional coal hoppers for the Grey district. A reply had ' -en received, stating that, owing to the financial position, nothing could be done at present. , x Mr Cunningham staged that there were plenty of hoppers for normal times, but not for abnormal times. At present, there was a dearth in the orders for coal, and it was unlikely that the Government would increase the number of hoppers. It was hardly an opportune moment, and it would not be fair to expect 200 more, but an extra 100 were required for rush periods. There were about 450 hoppers in the district, but about 50 of them were usually under repair. It would not be fair to press the matter at present. Mr Shallcrass said that the storage of coal in hoppers was objected to. Mr Cunningham: You must use hoppers for screened coal. There is no other way out of it. They know that quite well. We are short on occasions to meet rushes, brought about by the shoaling and the late arrival of '’steamers. When the trade gets back to normal, we will want another 100. We have been asking for 200, but I think that is rather excessive. The Chairman said that, if 200 were asked for, 100 might be granted. Mr Greenslade said that the coal trade should improve in the winter months. Mr Cunningham expressed the opinion that the present supply of hoppers would be any amount for this year, at any rate. FLOWERY CREEK ROAD. In connection with the representations made to the Government, that the road from Kumara Junction to Flowery Creek should be completed as a relief work, a reply was received stating that the representations had been considered by Cabinet, but it was decided that the Government could not take any action at present. Mr Greenslade said that they were

not asking the Government to spend J any more money than they were do- > ing under the Unemployment Act at I the present time. The men now emi ployed by the Borough Council and I County Council could not he kept working much longer, and they could be diverted to the Flowery Creek road I or any other road with no additional cost to the Government. It was purely a matter for the approval of the Unemployment Board. The road was of a national character. The local bodies would not be able to carry on, the present relief work for any length of time, because they were spending a( certain proportion of their own money,.

The Chairman said that he had interviewed Mr J. O’Brien, M.P., since the latter’s return from Wellington. Mr O’Brien said that the Minister of: Public Works had promised to endeavour to have an amount put on the Estimates, for giving access to 1 settlers. However, it was questionable what grants would be made for' any roads. It might be worth while sending a letter to the Chairman of the Unemployment Board. When he was in Christchurch, said Mr McLeany he interviewed Mr Climie, of the Canterbury Progress League, who took a keen interest in West Coast matters, and he promised his assistance. He also interviewed Mr Leadley, of the Unemployment Board. The matter-' could be referred to the Minister of Labour, who was Chairman of the Un-, employment Board. Mr Greenslade said that the Greymouth Unemployment Committee would he meeting next Wednesday. The Chairman said that representations to the Minister of Labour, on the lines of Mr Greenslade’s remarks, might bring results. Mr Cunningham: Approximately what money is required?

The Chairman stated that the cost would be £lO,OOO or £15,000, including bridges. The road would save ten miles between Greymouth and Hokitika, and vice versa. An average of 100 vehicles, per day made the journey, which,. at the low estimate of sixpence per mile, represented £5O per day, or £350 per week, which would be saved to motorists if the route were shortened by the completion of the road from Kumara Junction to Flowery Creek. Mr Cunningham; It would be a wonderful improvement. There is no question about that. From the tourist point of view, well, it is very hard to put a value on it.

The Chairman said thpt Mr kert and the Transport Board were in favour of the completion of the roadMr Greenslade said that lie thought iChe Grey -County Council would want: to -get rtd of the men at present em- 1 ployed on relief work, as they could noLaffortl to keep on subsidising them. His resolution, that -the matter jbe re-: ferred >to the Minister of Labour and the Greymouth Unemployment .Committee, was approved. “A STRAIGHT-GUT STEAL.” ' GREY HARBOUR BOARD'S CUT. The cut of £3OOO per annum in the Government’s payment to the Greymouth Harbour Board, effected by the No. 2 Finance Bill, was the subject of some plain speaking. The Chairman said that it was a serious matter -for the district. Unfortunately, the Board did not get an opportunity of placing its views before the Government before the Bill became law. The reduction meant a loss of practically £5Q;000 to the Board in 20 years. The matter affected the whole district, and the Board would appreciate any assistance from tile Chamber. He suggested that a resolution be passed, expressing strong disapproval at the way in which the Board had been treated. The reduction meant a serious handicap to the proper development of the port, which was about the fifth in importance in the Dominion. Mr Coates: The sad thing about it is that it is such a discouragement to you people, who tried to conserve your funds. If you had got that dredge on the way, they would not have been able to do this, because the money would have gone. You are trying to save, and do your best. It is a straightout steal! You are trying to build up funds, and when you build it up, they grab it. Mr Cunningham: Have they mentioned any period? “No,” said the Chairman.

Mr Coates said tihat >the Board had been acting in the best faith, and trying to get funds together. Because the Board had not dissipated the money into thin air, the Government was going to take it. Mr Cunningham: There is no doubt that the Board is well on the way to improving the port, and it seems hard that they are going to have this opposition. Have any other grants been ■reduced?

The Chairman said that he understood the Westport Harbour works were to be stopped. Personally, he. thought that the Prime Minister had looked at the 1920 Act, but the validating Act of 1925 made the payment to the Board permanent, for the rights; of the Grey-Brunner railway. Mr Massey, who was then Prime Minister, wanted to .secure the Board in the matter. The State mine, another endowment, had also been taken away from the Board.

“You certainly have sold your birthright for a mess of potage!” said Mr Coates. Mr Cunningham said that a strongcase could be made out for the Board. He referred to the effects of floods, which caused shoaling in the river, and necessitated dredging. That should be clearly pointed out to the Government. The river must be dredged to keep the port open, no matter how much water there was on the bar.

The Chairman stated that it cost Westport £35,000 last year for dredging alone. Mr Coates said that, if the Board had ordered a new dredge some years ago, the Government could not have taken the money now, because commitments would have been entered into. Because the Board had acted in a sane, businesslike manner, they were losing their money. It was a breach of faith. He did not think the present Prime Minister understood the position for one moment. Mr Gveenslade said that the reduction would affect the development of the port to the extent of 25 per cent, pei’ year, unless the reserve fund were used'. The reserve had been built up over a long period, to carry out a certain programme. When the Board was running its business in a sane and reasonable way, the Government said that it had saved money, without taking into consideration the works in view.

Mr Cunningham: I presume you based your works on the assumption that the £3OOO was to continue? The Chairman replied in the affir-

mative, and stated that the Board was committed to works costing £70,000 in the next three years. Now the Government had collared £3OOO per year, which, capitalised, meant £50,000 in 20 years. A resolution, that the Chamber express strong disapproval of the action of the Government in reducing the annual payment by £3OOO, and ask for a reconsideration of the matter, was approved. “I am sorry that we have not a larger meeting to-day,” said the Chairman, “because I contend that this, matter is important for the whole of Westland, and not only for Greymouth. If the Board is later on forced to strike a rate, then possibly the public will feel the position very acutely. We must keept this port -open, at all costs.” .