PARLIAMENT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLIV, Issue 9876, 25 July 1923, Page 7

PARLIAMENT.

THE DAY’S WORK, (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 24. In the House of Representatives this afternoon, , . ~ The Hon. G. J. Anderson moved the second 1 reading of the Rent Restriction Continuance Bill, which he stated continued existing legislation. Mu Monteith stressed amendments, which he considered necessary. The Minister, in reply, said these points had been previously considered, and it was thought inadvisable to give effect to them. The present Act was not a good one, as it prevented private people building houses to let, and the sooner it was off the Statute Book the better. The only reason the Government was continuing it was on account of the legislation now in course of passage through the House, and which they hoped to be in full operation next year’. . The Bill was read 1 a second time. Companies Bill.

The Hon. W. Nosworthy moved the second reading of tlie Companies Special Empowering Bill, which, he explained was intended to give relief to certain directors who had guaranteed the account of the New Zealand Meat Packing and Bacon Company (Cooperative) Ltd., on behalf of certain other companies, the shareholders of which were empowered to say by resolution whether a refund should _ be made out of their funds to the directors who had been called upon to pay up by tlie bank. Mr Wilford protested against the Bill, because it gave no protection to the preference shareholders of the companies which would be affected by its provisions. The Hon. J. A. Hanan declared that this was special legislation which' the House should not he asked to. pass. There was the ordinary company law, which should be sufficient for the pm - pose. He suggested that the Bill should be referred to tlie Statutes Revision Committee, which could take evidence. Mr 0. Hawken said the position was that certain directors of small dairy companies had guaranteed the account of the New Zealand Meat Packing and Bacon Company, Ltd., on behalf of their companies, and when the guarantee was called up, it was considered fair that the dairy companies should recompense their directors for the money thev had paid out to the bank, but it was found that the companies had no power to do so. The Bill was in" nded to give the shareholders that pr" or. fir John Luke said tlie Bill introduce 1 a. most dangerous precedent, and it ought to go to a Committee. Messrs Sidey, Rolloston (Timarti), Forbes and Ransom all contended that the Bill gave the directors preference over all other creditors which was unfair.

The Minister ,in reply, said the Bill was a. perfectly fair and straightforward measure.

The Bill was read a second time and on the motion of the Minister was referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. Lccai Legislation Bill, The Hon. W. Downio Stewart moved the second readingtof the Local Legislation Bill, the object of which was to provide a method by which ratepayers and ail others interested might have full prior information both as to the purpose of the proposed minor local legislation and as to the actual legisla-. tive, method by which effect was to be given to such proposals, such “prior information” to be by notice in the Government “Gazette.” This, he said, would obviate objection to clauses being inserted by local bodies in the “Wash-ing-up” Bill, and concerning which local .residents had no notice.

The Hon. D. Buddo said he objected not so much to the Bill as to the method of notification. Very few people nowadays read the Government “Gazette.” Mr Witty supported this contention. What was wanted was full publicity of what was going on. Notification should be in the local newspapers. After further debate the Minister, in his reply, said the question of local advertising had not been lost sight of, and authority for that could be provided for in regulations. If a local body chose not to use this legislation, but preferred to proceed by a local Bill, there was nothing to prevent that. The Bill was read a second time and referred to the Standing Orders Committee. Industrial Societies’ Bill. The Hon. R. F. Bollard moved the second reading of the Industrial Provident Societies Act Amendment Bill, which, he said, did no more than to alter the date on which such societies had to send in their annual balancesheets. The second reading was agreed to without discussion. Immigration Restriction Bill. The Hon. W. Downie Stewart moved the second reading of the Immigration Restriction Act Amendment Bill, the principal provision being that British subjects by birth might, after the Bill became law, enter New Zealand without taking the oath of allegiance. Mr Holland said he thought the line of distinction between British subjects by birth and by naturalisation was too fine to be reasonable. It was time that the Government dropped the whole silly business of trying to make a disloyal person loyal by taking an oath. The Minister, m the course of a brief reply, said he would he quite prepared to discuss in Committee the point raised by Mr Holland: that exemption from the oath should apply to all British subjects. The Bill was read a second time. Death Duties Bill.

The second reading of tho Death Duties Act Amendment Bill was moved by Mr Massey. The Bill was, he said, highly technical, and he proposed to refer it to the" Statutes Revision Committee. The amendments were mainly in removing the duty in certain cases of gifts where it was felt that the State should, in justice, make a remission. , n Mr Wilford said under clause 2 a rich man could give his daughter £50,000 on her marriage, without paying a penny of gift duty, and that, lie feared, was the purpose of the Bill. He would like to know who suggested this.. It was not the Commissioner of Taxes, he thought, as he was too careful in guarding the revenue to make such a suggestion. There were other proposals in the Bill of which he heartily approved. Mr Holland urged that the time had

arrived when the House ought to be considering teh raising of tho death duties on rich estates, instead of reducing taxation, as proposed in clause 2. '.l’he Prime Minister, in reply, said arrears of death duties, which up to a year ago were very heavy, were greatly reduced as a result of the power taken to charge 6 per cent, on amounts owing. He assured the House that the Bill was not intended to meet any particular case, but there were cases where relief could be fairly given, though he did not know of many men who could give away £50,000 to a daughter or anyone else. He did not agree with Mr Holland that death duties should he increased. The State was [now collecting a very large sum of money through this channel, and lie did not want to put a levy on thrift and industry, which had built up this country. At the same time, in reducing taxation, there were many direcjtions in which relief could he given before death duties. | The Bill was read a second time and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. Justices cf the Peace Bill. The Justices of the Peace Act Amen men t Bill was, on the motion of the Hon. C. J. Parr, read a second time pro forma, and referred to 'the Statutes Revision Committee. The House rose at 11 pgU