BUSINESS VIEWS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 269, 28 October 1932, Page 7

BUSINESS VIEWS

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS. A. AND N.Z. TRADE BARRIERS. By Telegraph—Press Association. Dunedin, Oct. 28. The conference of Chambers of Commerce was resumed this morning. Auckland presented a remit, through Mr Harvey Turner, urging on the Government the desirability of bringing about a reduction in the present trade barriers between Australia and New Zealand and of endeavouring to negotiate with other countries on a suitable reciprocal basis. The Speaker referred to the barriers between Australia and New Zealand on potatoes and fruit particularly. It seemed ridiculous that the two countries could not work on a better trade basis. The position seemed to be that the two countries felt aggrieved at each other’s attitude. He felt that the time had arrived when they should try to open up reciprocal trade with other countries, otherwise New Zealand might stand by itself and live within itself. Mr Machin thought they should support the remit. They might negotiate with the Associated Chambers of Australia and if they got anywhere could then negotiate with the respective Governments. The remit was adopted. It was also decided to refer the question to the executive to see if something could ba done on the lines suggested by Mi Machin. Mr Machin added that they had received a cablegram from the Associated Chambers of Australia wishing fhe conference every success. STATE LENDING. Mr Stronach Paterson moved a remit from the executive asking the Government to withdraw from lending on land and prbperty and leave it to private enterprise. He said that State lending had had disastrous results to taxpayers. The asking of a moratorium to the Public Trustee for local bodies’ sinking funds indicated the position in which the country’s finances had got. Mr A. F. Wright said they should obtain full information as to the position regarding State lending. Mr F. H. Bass questioned whethei they could get sufficient money from private enterprise. Mr P. 0. Smeflie said that at the end of March, 1932, the interest owing to the State Advances Department came to £940,000, and he doubted if it could be recovered. Instead of the losses being placed on bond-holders it was being transferred to the whole body of the taxpayers. He saw no reason why the State Advances Department should not be ultimately liquidated. AMENDMENT MOVED. He moved an addition to the remit as follows; “That this conference considers that no new money be provided for the State lending departments and that the State Advances Act and its amendments of 1913 be immediately repeated.” Mr Machin said that a first mortgagee found sometimes that owing to Government priority he was only the fourth mortgagee. The State Advances Department was to-day competing for the business of farmers and yet it had no money. There was confusion of interests. The Government departed from recognised principles and then the road to Hell was easy. Mr Paterson said he would be prepared to accept,the amendment. There was plenty of private money available for all the legitimate requirements of borrowing on land. Mr Wright said that the Government should confine itself to governing and not to trading. The remit, as amended, was adopted. A remit asking the Government to appoint two well experienced commercial men to visit the forthcoming Shanghai Exhibition and other portions of the East with a view to opening up direct trade was withdrawn. Mr Stronach Paterson pointed out that, if there were opportunities, private enterprise could be relied on to take them. ALL SELLERS; NO BUYERS. Mr A. M. Seaman (Auckland) presented a remit suggesting that the Government introduce a downward revision of tariff on both British and foreign goods; the removal of duty and surtax; the removal of restrictions and embargoes on the import or export of certain commodities; cur. tailment of the powers granted by Order-in-. Council to the Customs and other departments, which result in uncertainty in trade and inevitably hinder commerce. Mr Seaman said that the present position was that all countlies were now sellers, not buyers. As soon as there was a danger of some one climbing over the tariff wall it was built up further. Mr A. H. Allen said that if a duty of even 200 or 300 per cent, were imposed they would not be able to keep out Japanese footwear. Some methods other than Customs would have to be adopted to deal with that country. Mr Stronach Paterson said that the remit was enunciating general principles. He could say from long experience of the Customs Department that no department carried out its duties so carefully, impartially and justly as the Customs. (Hear, hear). At the same time, it was another barrier to international trade to place powers in hands of an individual which might at any time operate against international trade. Mr T. C. Ross asked what the clause meant. Did it mean that the tariff would ultimately be abolished. Voices: Yes. CUSTOMS REVENUE. Mr Ross said that for 1931 the Customs revenue had supplied £7,000,000. If the £7,000,000 had to be found by incqme it would prove very awkward for them all. Tjie country still required reasonable protection. A large amount of capital was invested in secondary industries, and if they were wiped out then the employees would have to find work elsewhere. The remit was adopted with the alteration that it was decided to urge on the - Government “as a general priiyjiple” to carry out the clauses in the remit. The word ‘ discriminating” was inserted before the words “downward remission” and the word “vexatious” before the words “powers granted.” Mr W. Bottrell (Canterbury) submitted the following remit: “Tgat this

conference is convinced that the restrictive provisions of the Board of Trade Act, the Commercial Trusts Act and the Coat of Living Act operate to the detriment of business and the community generally, and therefore urges on the Government the immediate repeal of these Acts.” On the suggestion of Mr Stronach Paterson the words after the word “Government” were deleted and the following words added, “their radical amendment on the lines recently presented to the Government by a deputation sponsored by this association.”— Adopted.

REMITS WITHDRAWN,

Mr A. M. Seaman, on behalf of Hamilton, moved a remit urging tfie Abolition at the earliest possible date of all wheat duties. He said that the Auckland Association had not brought forward a similar remit because it thought it unlikely that it would be given impartial and unbiassed consideration. (Laughter). The remit was not in accord with his own vietws or those of his Chamber. There was no discussion and the chairman said the remit was unanimously rejected. Hamilton also submitted a remit protesting against the action of the Government in placing the sole power of handling and distributing the milling wheat imported by it in the hands of the Wheat Marketing Board. Mr A. F. Wright read a lengthy communication from the board covering the whole transaction. Regarding the importation, the board had made no charge for its services and had made no profit. The remit was unanimously withdrawn. A remit that, in the opinion of the conference, the time has arrived when the necessity for the registration of all hire and customary purchase agreements of chattels should be reimposed,” was rejected.