ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS REMIND MR. NASH OF POLITICAL FREEDOM

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22813, 7 December 1948, Page 4

ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS REMIND MR. NASH OF POLITICAL FREEDOM

(P.A.) "WELLINGTON, Dee. 7. In a statement issued yesterday Mr. A. 0. Ilennv, the secretary of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, denied that there was any trace of mischief, propaganda and/or party political bias in the telegram which the chambers sent to the acting Prime Minister, Mr. W. Nash, last Friday.

Mr. Ileany said that the chambers had publicly raised a voice in protest and in question about a government matter of considerable public importance and for Mr. Nash to sav that this was mischievous party political propaganda was not only absurd but also came close to autocratic dictatorship.

Legislation before Parliament was open, or should be open, to scrutiny by the public and interested organisations and it would bo a sorry day when that right was denied. fb'. Hcsnv said the chambers of commerce wore not, and never had been, party political. Both the Associated Chambers of Commerce and individual chambers had actively participated in public affairs far earlier than the time when the Labour Party came into office and representations were always made regardless of party. Still a Free Country Mr. Heanv added: “Never in our long history have we ever engaged in less newspaper publicity, yet never have we received such a sharp rap over the knuckles as now. We would remind Mr. Nash that even though to a severe-ly-reduced extent, this is still a free country with freedom of speech, of association and of the press.” Mr. Heany said that the explanation

regarding the fund now given by Mr. Nash should properly have been produced for the information of Parliament and the people when the Finance Bill was before the House of Parliament. If an explanation had been given at the time it was not reported in the press. ■‘But. even now as an explanation it is most unsatisfactory and it does not meet our objections," tie added Mr. Ileany said that Mr. Nash’s explanation seemed to be a distinction without a difference. If the Government did not intend to apply the earthquake relief fund to other disasters, would Mr. Nash explain how the Government proposed to apply the provisions of the Act to other disasters? Possible Taxes or Levies “On whom are taxes or levies to create a fund for other disasters to be imposed?” asked Mr. Heany. “Are the levies to be voluntarily or compulsory? Are they to apply to all movable or immovable property? “Are those drawing compensation to be restricted to contributors? At what point do personnel or local losses become disasters? “What limits, if any. are to be observed? Are proper insurance principles to be followed? How much money does the Government estimate this new fund will require?” _ Mr. Heany also asked regarding State assistance for the fund and for information regarding the method of imposing premium requirements. Much more information than Mr. Nash had given was called for, he concluded. The whole scheme should have been the subject of. a completely-and-properly-drawn-up bill accompanied by full* explanations instead of an unexplained clause in a washing-up bill. But apparently the whole thing was to be worked out and presented as an accomplished fact by means of regulations according to Mr. Nash’s concluding statement.