BUSINESS MEN'S PARLIAMENT

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 365, 28 October 1932, Page 5

BUSINESS MEN'S PARLIAMENT

(Press Assn. — :

DUNEDIN CONGRESS ANNUAL MEETING OF N.Z. CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE BREACHES OF PRIVILEGE

By Telegraph — Copyrlght)

Dunedin, Thursday. Tke Deputy-Mayor, Mr. F. W. Mitchell, in the' absence of the - Maybr, welcomed the delegates to the annual meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, | which commenced this morning. ! He said theirs was really the businessmen's Parliament of Nev/ Zealand. The difference betweeia the two Parliaments was that one ■ was made up of all talk and very little work, while with the Charnbfers' Parliament it was very little talk and a great deal of work." Public Works • || Ths first remit (a re-affirmation) was presented hy the executive and Canterbury. It urg-ed 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-constructed 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 suppdrted by the National Expenditure Commission. The remit was carried with practieally no discussion. Mr. D. J. McGowan presented a remit re-affirming that the Government be urged to eliminate unfair State and public body competition with private enterprise in trading activitites, and repeal special legislation which curtails and interferes with legitimate private trading. 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. 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 sufiicient evidence of the need of a commission. Expenditure Conimission's Report Some discussion 'took place on the remit which welcomed the second repoi't of the National Expenditure Commission and hoped that the Government would at once take steps to carry out its reeommendations.

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 immediately be put into force, but if the Government neglected any recommendation it should justify its neglect. Mr. Machin said: "We shall 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." The remit was adopted with the addition of an 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."

Freedom 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 the conimission's report, in which he made certain affegations against members of Parliament. The followmg resolution was adopted: "That this conference unanimously protests against the action proposed to be taken against a member of tbe National Expenditure Commission on the followmg grounds: — (1) That the commission was appointed hy 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 importanee, 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 aud 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 fufidamental principles of British liberty will he violated; (5) that it is also essential in the public interest that the newspapers should be free to express criticism of Parliamentary action where necessary."