MANY REMITS

Southland Times, Issue 21850, 29 October 1932, Page 6

MANY REMITS

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE ANNUAL CONFERENCE CONTINUED TARIFF PROBLEMS (Per United Press Association.) Dunedin, October 28. The Associated Chambers of Commerce conference 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 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 these 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 and also 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 W. Machin thought they should support the remit. They might negotiate with the Associated Chambers of Australia and if they got anywhere they could then negotiate with the respective Governments. The remit was adopted. It was also decided to refer the question to an executive to see if something could be done on the lines suggested by Mr Machin. Mr Machin added that they had received a cablegram from the Associated Chambers in Australia wishing the conference every success.

Government Lending. Mr Stronach Paterson moved a remit from the executive asking the Government to withdraw from lending on land and property and leave it to private enterprise. He said State lending had had disastrous results to the taxpayers. The asking of a moratorium to the Public Trustee for local bodies’ sinking funds indicated the position into which the country’s finances had got. Mr A. F. Wright said they should obtain full information of the position regarding State lending. Mr F. H. Bass questioned whether they could get sufficient money from private enterprise. Mr P. O. Smellie 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 losses' being placed on the bondholders it was being transferred to the whole body of taxpayers. He said there was no reason why the State Advances Department should not be ultimately liquidated. 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 repealed.” Mr Machin said that the 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 the farmers and yet it had no money. There was a confusion of interests. The Government departed from the recognized principles and the road to Hell was easy. Mr Paterson said he could be prepared to accept the amendment. There was plenty of private money available for all the legitimate requirements of the borrowing on land. Mr Wright said the Government should confine itself to government, not to trading. The remit as amended was adopted. Trade with the East. 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. 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 the duty and surtax, and the removal of restrictions and embargoes on the import and export of certain commodities, the curtailment 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 the present position was that all countries were now sellers, not buyers. As soon as there was a clanger of someone climbing over a tariff wall it was built up further. Mr A. H. Allen said that if a duty of 200 or 300 per cent, were imposed they would not be able to keep out Japanese footwear. Some method other than Customs would have to be adopted to deal with that country. Mr Stronach Paterson said the remit was enumerating general principles. He would say from long experience of the Customs Department that no department carried out its duties so carefully, impartially and justly as the Customs Department. (Hear, hear.) At the same time it was another barrier to international trade _to place powers in the hands of an individual which might at any time operate against international trade. Mr T. C. Ross asked what clause one meant. Did it mean that the tariff would ultimately be abolished? Voices: Yes.

Mr Ross said that for 1931 the Customs revenue had supplied £7,000,000. if the £7,000,000 had to be found by income it would prove very awkward for them all. The country still required reasonable protection. A large amount of capital was invested in the secondary industries. 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 principle” to carry out the clauses in the remit. The word discriminating was inserted before the words “downward revision” and the word “vexatious” before the words “powers granted.” Trade Restrictions. Mr W. Bottrell (Canterbury) submitted the following remit: “That this conference is convinced that the restrictive provisions of the Board of Trade Act, Commercial Trusts and Cost of Living Acts 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 line recently presented to the Government by a deputation sponsored by this association.” The remit was adopted. Mr A. M. Seaman, on behalf of Hamilton, moved a remit urging the 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 it would be given an impartial and unbiased consideration. (Laughter,) The remit was not

in accord with his own views 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 sole power of handling and distributing to millers the 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 registration of all hire and customary purchase agreements of chattels should be re-imposed was rejected. Officers Elected. Mr A. S. Burgess (Wanganui) was elected president for the coming year and Mr J. P. Luke (Wellington) vicepresident. It was decided to hold the next annual conference at Wanganui. The greater part of the afternoon was occupied with a discussion on the division of the product of industry. A lengthy address on the subject was given by Mr H. S. E. Turner (Christchurch), who in the course of remarks suggested that the Railways Board with the help of the Transport Board was trying to establish as nearly as possible a monopoly of transport. He felt sure that the result would be the same as the result of all monopolies—unfair exploitation joined with inefficiency. Real progress had always been and would always be associated with progress in transport and the object of the Railways Board, if it was pursued diligently and with the powerful support of the Transport Board would not be in the interests of progress.