COMMERCE CHAMBERS

Waikato Times, Volume 112, Issue 18777, 27 October 1932, Page 8

COMMERCE CHAMBERS

N.Z. ASSOCIATION. ANNUAL MEETINQ HELD. BUSINESS MEN’S PARLIAMENT. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) DUNEDIN, Thursday. Tho Deputy-Mayor, Mr F. W. Mltohell, in the absenoe of the Mayor, welcomed the delegates to the annual meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, which commenced this morning. He > said 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, while 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 >velcomed Mr H. H. Sterling to the conference, and congratulated him and the Railway Board on the business-like statement .recently issued, and on the board’s attempt to reduce overhead expenditure to meet the reduced revenue. Mr Machin read cablegrams from the Federation 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. Public Works. The first remit (a re-afflrmation) 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 re-efinstituted so as to make it a purely advisory and supervisory body in connection with these works. Mr Stronach Paterson said there seemed to be 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.

Unfair State Competition. 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 it should be bound by the same rules and laws as operate between subject and subject. Mr Wright said the remit had been before annual meetings on many occasions. Eminent Judges had spoken against the existing system. The speaker quoted cases in New Zealand where claims for priority under Royal prerogative had been put forward. rte said the position was a grotesque anomaly and an absurdity. The remit was adopted. Mr D. J. McGowan presented a remit re-afflrming that the Government be urged to eliminate unfair State arid public body competition with private enterprise in trading activities, and repeal special legislation which curtails and interferes with legitimate private trading. Mr McGowan claimed that private enterprise could always provide for greater employment than enterprises by the State. The State and municipal enterprises were not run on the same economic basis as private enterprises. 1-Ie gave as an instance the railway activities In providing fleets of motor lorries at prices for transport with which private owners could not compete with the railways. The same thing was even found in the ranks ot furniture manufacturers and iron founders. It was obvious that as State departments increased their competition with private traders more workers must be thrown into the ranks ol the unemployed. Mr J. P. Luke said the movement was towards the socialisation of industry. They should protest direct to the Government, not to the Railway Board. Parliament should determine the point, not the Railway Board. Mr Machin said that the Chambers had always pressed for a board of business men to run the railways. He thought they 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. 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.

Land and Income-tax. The conference reiterated 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 a modernised Companies Act on the Statute Book during the current session of Parliament. It held that the operation of the Unemployment Act of 1930 and the amended acts of 1931 and 1932 should relieve local bodies of the responsibility of providing for (he relief of unemployment, and approved of rite remit fiiat the lime had arrived when there should he a reduction in the number of members of Parliament. Mr Machin said there was a strong hint that appointments to the Upper House would he 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 two local bodies, which had borrowed £72.000.000, and that this was sufficient evidence of the need of a commission. Expenditure Commission’s Report. Some discussion took place on the remit which welcomed the second report of Hie National Expenditure Commission and hoped that the Government would at once take steps to carry out its recommendations. Mr Slronach Paterson said the report was the finest thing of Its kind that had been produced in this country. He did not suggest that every rccomnvendalion should Immediately lie put into force, but if the Government neglected any recommendation it. should justify Its neglect. Mr Machin said: “We will lose Ihc finest opportunity wo 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 urge on the Government that if It decides that I (Continued in next Column.)

any of the recommendations of the' commission cannot be given effect to, such recommendations be referred back for 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. Mr D. Rutledge (Invercargill) said he thought that where a Government department was paying it should not be interfered with. The commission recommended that tne 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 £6,000. The speaker deprecated bringing in sectional interests. Mr P. 0. 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 ihe same commission for a further report.’’

Froodom of Criticism. The conference went into committee in regard to 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 tiie commission’s report, in which lie 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 a representative of His Majesty the King for the express purpose of reviewing and reporting on 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 freely and frankly according to the evidence brought before the commission; (3) that if action is taken It will lie impossible to get men of Hie right stamp to undertake similar work in the public interest; (4) that if criticism of Parliament is to be a broach of privilege one of the most fundamental principles of British liberty will lie 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.”