MOST WELCOME

Southland Times, Issue 21849, 28 October 1932, Page 8

MOST WELCOME

REPORT APPROVED IMMEDIATE ADOPTION URGED EXPENDITURE COMMISSION PRAISED (Per United Press Association.) Dunedin, October 27. At the conference of the Associated Chambers of Commerce to-day some discussion took place on the remit which welcomed the second report of the National Expenditure Commission and hoped that the Government would at once take steps to carry out its recommendations. Mr Stronach Paterson said the report was the finest thing of its kind that had been produced in this country. He did not suggest that every recommendation should be immediately put into force, but if the Government neglected any recommendation it should justify its neglect. “If we neglect to support the Commission,” said the president, (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.” Mr 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 A. F. Wright said the Commission had made its report and was dead. If the amendment were passed the Commission would have to be reconstituted. Mr D. Rutledge (Invercargill) said that he thought that where a Government department was paying it should not be interfered with. The Commission recommended that 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 had recommended that the departments of Lands and Deeds and Stamps should be confined to the four centres and there was to be a saving by the transfer of £6OOO. The speaker deprecated the bringing of 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 Paterson. 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.” Mr Mclntosh’s Addendum. The conference went into committee to consider the attitude taken up by Parliament with respect to the action of Mr Mclntosh, a member of the National Expenditure Commission, who presented an addendum to the Commission’s report in which he made certain allegations against Members of Parliament, and 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 representative 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 the terms of reference; (2) that in the opinion of this conference it is of the utmost importance in the public interest that where matters are referred to a Royal Commission each member of such Commission should be free to express himself free and frankly according to the evidence brought before the Commission (3) that if action is taken it will be impossible to get men of the right stamp to undertake similar work in the public interest; (4) that if criticism of Parliament is to be a breach of privilege one of the most fundamental principles of British liberty will be violated; (5) that it is also essential in the public interest that the newspapers should be free to express criticism of Parliamentary action when necessary.”

COMMISSION DEFENDED WORK WELL DONE. Wellington, October 27. Replying to the Highways Fund deputation the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes) said that in the course of criticism of the Government the terms “robbery” and “embezzlement” had been used. It had also been said that the Government was breaking contracts. The interests of the country came first, said Mr Forbes, and if it was necessary to break contracts they had to be broken. The commission had been attacked from pillar to post. The commission had had a difficult duty in saying candidly what it thought of the way the Government was carrying on the business of the country. The long suffering taxpayer had a right to know if his money was being spent to the best possible advantage. He thought the commission had done its work well in a pretty candid way. It had been subjected to much abuse and criticism, but he thought it had done service to the people.