CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 October 1932, Page 5

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE

ANNUAL CONFERENCE

“WORK—NOT TALK”

[FEB PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

DUNEDIN, October 27. The Deputy-Mayor (Mr F. W. Mitchell), in the absence of the Mayor, welcomed the delegates to the annual meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, which commenced this morning. He said that theirs was really the business men’s Parliament of New Zealand. The difference between the two Parliaments was that one was made up of all talk and very little work. With the Chambers’ Parliament, it was very little talk and a great deal of work. Mr W. Machin (President), replying, said that in the present economic condition of the Dominion, they should not allow the value of men to be subordinated to the value of gold. Mr Machin welcomed Mr H. H. Sterling to the conference, and congratulated him and the Railways Board on the businesslike statement recently issued, and on the Board’s attempt to reduce overhead expenditure- to meet reduced revenue.

Mr Machin read cablegrams from the Fed’eration of Chambers of the British Empire, asking that the proposed visit of delegates to New Zealand next year be postponed for three years. The request was agreed to. The first remit (a reaffirmation) was presented by the Executive and Canterbury. It urged the Government to agree that all future construction work for the Public Works Department be carried out by contract through public tenders, and that the Department be reconstituted so as to make it purely advisory, and the supervising body in connection with these works.

Mr Stronach Paterson said that there seemed a likelihood of at last getting somewhere with this remit. It had been supported by the National Expenditure Commission. The remit was carried, with practically no discussion. Mr A. F. Wright moved the reaffirmation of a remit protesting against Government trading ventures being accorded the protection of the Crown Suits Act, and asking that, where the Crown is a litigant in respect of trading ventures 1 , it should be bound by the same rules and laws as operate between subject and subject. Mr Wright said that the remit had been before annual meetings on many previous occasions. Eminent judges had spoken against the existing system. The speaker quoted cases in New Zealand where claims for priority under the Royal prerogative had been put forward. He said that the position was a grotesque anomaly and an absurdity. The remit was adopted.

Mr D. J. McGowan presented a remit, reaffirming that the Government be urged to eliminate unfair State and public body competition with private enterprise in trading activities, and repeal the special- legislation which curtails and interferes with legitimate private trading. Mr McGowan claimed that private enterprise woqld always provide for greater employment than enterprise by the State. The State and municipal enterprises were not run on the same economic basis as private enterprises. He gave as an instance the railway activities in providing fleets of motor lorries at prices for transport with which private owners could not compete. The Railways Department was even found in the ranks of furniture manufactures, and iron founders. It was obvious that, as the State Departments increased their competition with private traders, more workers must be thrown into the ranks of the unemployed. Mr J. P. Luke said that the movement was towards the socialisation of industry. They should protest direct to the Government and not to the Railways Board. Parliament should determine the point, not the Railways Board.

Mr Machin said that the Chambers had always pressed for a board of business men to run the railways. He thought that it would be better to discuss the matter with the Board.

Mr H. H. Sterling, in answer to a question, said that, as a general rule, the Board could not receive deputations, but if the business was important enough, the Board would receive a deputation, and the Board had’ already agreed to accept a deputation, as asked by the Chambers. The remit was adopted. PARLIAMENT AND ECONOMY. The conference reiterated the previous decisions urging that the land tax be abolished and an income tax substituted. It expressed appreciation of the intention of the Government to place the modernised companies Act on the statute book during the current session of Parliament. They held that the operation of the Unemployment Act, 1930, and the amended acts of 1931 and 1932 should lelieve local bodies of the responsibility of providing for the relief of unemployment, and approved of the' lemit that the time had arrived when there should be a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament. Mr Machin said there was a strong hint that appointments to the Upper House would be made on a new principle, on future service rather than past service.

The conference approved of a new remit that the Government should delay no longer in setting up the promised commission to inquire into the whole system of local body administration. It was stated that there were 600 local bodies which had borrowed £72,000,000, and that this was auitl cient evidence of need for the (Mm mission.

Some discussion took place on (Im remit which welcomed the iiecmnl re port of the National Expenditure t'etn mission, and the Conference Imped that the Government would at mice

take steps to carry out its recmummi da t ions.

Mr Stronach Patterson said the report was finest thine, of tta kind that had been produced in this ceitnitt He did not suggest that every recemmvn dation should he i muted in tel t put lull* force, hut if the Governtnetu tmgleci ed tiny reeomniotnlat ion it •Uioutd ins tifv its neglect.

“If wo neglect to support the t'otu mission,” 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.”

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 Wright said the Commission had made its report, and was dead. If the amendment were passed the Commission would have to be reconstituted.

D. Ruttledge (Invercargill) said he thought that where a Government department was paying it should not be interfered with. The Commission recommended the Lands and Deeds Department should be transferred from Invercargill to Dunedin, but it - was ‘paying. Mr Machin: A very happy position. Mr A. F. 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. The speaker deprecated bringing in sectional interests. Mr P. O. Smellie said the report should be a book of words for every Chamber of Commerce.

The remit was adopted with the addition of the amendment moved by Mr Patterson. The addition was altered to read: “but that no recommendation from the Commission be disregarded without being referred back to the same Commission for a further report.” QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE, The Conference went into committee to consider the attitude taken up by Parliament with respect to the action of Mr A. Mclntosh, a member of the National Expenditure Commission, who presented an addendum to the Commission’s report, in which h»e made certain allegations against members of Parliament. The following resolution was adopted:—“That 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 representatives of His Majesty the King for the express purpose of reviewing and reporting upon public expenditure in all its aspects, and that the remarks published were undoubtedly within (he terms of the reference.

(2) That in the opinion of thljs Conference it is of the utmost importance and in the public interest that where matters are referred to a Royal t'ommissiou, each member of such t'ommission should be free to express himself freely and frankly according to the evidence brought before the Commission.

U«' That if action is taken it will ba impossibly to get men of the right stamp io undertake similar work in the public interest.

(D That if evitic-ism of Parliament ts to be a. breach of privilege, one of Hie must fundamental principles of British liberty will be violated.

LU That it is also essential in the i-p.biic iuievesi that the newspaper should, be free to express criticism of 1-o'lmmeutary action when neevsSgl V,