LONG DEBATE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 58, Issue 39, 25 November 1937, Page 9

LONG DEBATE

MINISTER’S SPEECH CURTAILED. EXTENSION OF TIME REFUSED. THE FINANCE BILL. (Abridged from Press Association"). AVELLINGTON, November 24. In the House of Representatives today urgency was accorded the passing of the Finance Bill. The second, reading debate was continued by Mr S. G. Holland (National, Christchurch North), Mr AV. M. Denham (Labour, Invercargill), Mr AV. A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago) and Mr. McMillan (Labour, Dunedin AVest). The Minister of Finance (the Horn AV. Nash), in reply, said the Opposition had contended that dairy farmers’ money was used for the purchase of Picot Brothers. There was no shadow of justification for such a statement In answer to an Opposition question, he said there would definitely be a deficit in the dairy industry account. He proceeded to compare the payouts of Australian dairy companies with those of New Zealand, stating that the Dominion farmer got a better price than the Austiialjfan. Referring to the hardship clause, the Minister said it had been asked if the Government would make permanent provision for such a clause, but it intended to amend the land and income tax law some time before the session finished in such a manner, it was hoped, that would obviate the necessity for a hardship clause in future. Speaking of the Opposition’s criticism of the provision to refer the decisions of the hardship commission to the Minister, Mr Nash said the principle in the Bill was exactly the same as that in the legislation by the last Government for writing off rents by Crown tenants and also that under the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act. The Opposition had merely fastened on that aspect of the case in order to mislead the public. He thought the Government had the right to say what portion of its revenue should be given away to anyone. The next point referred to was that of dairy prices, the Minister stating that he had been considerably surprised at the Hon. Adam Hamilton’s reference to the surplus in the cheese account of £258,000. The Leader of the "Opposition had failed to deduct sales costs from this amount, and whem these were deducted a total of £12,647 was arrived at. Waihi Company’s Action. There had been a lot of opposition to making the proposed legislation in reference to the AVailii Company retrospective, a!sid Mr Nash, who outlined the history of the company, stating it had paid in dividends since its inception a total of £6,263,801. The Minister stated that he had been astounded at the defence of the company put tip by the Opposition the previous night, and he was proceeding to deal with the operations which had led up to the necessity for the present legislation when the bell rang, indicating that his time was nearly up. At this juncture an incident occurred which arose out of" the action of Mr D. McDougall objecting to time extensions being granted to the Rt. Hon. G. AV. Forbes and the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates on the previous evening.

Mr Forbes rose to move an extension of time for Mr Nash, but when the motion was put by Mr Speaker it was objected to by Mr AV. J. Poison, and lost.

Mr Nash: It seems as if the hon. mamber does not want the story to be told to the House. The Minister of Education (the Hon. P. Fraser): It was done in a very rotten way.

Mr Poison rose to a point of order, saying he had heard the Minister of Education refer to his action as “the very rotten way in which he had done it.”

Mr Speaker ruled that the remark hitist he withdrawn.

Mr Fraser did so and replaced the word “rotten” with the word “unfair.” Mr Poison: Is that Parliamentary?

Mr Speaker: Yes. Mr Nash continued his speech. Ho pointed out that the return showing the Government’s transactions concerning the purchase of Picot Brothers had been tabled in the House two months ago and a copy had been supplied to all members. Mr Holland: But it does not show the price for the goodwill. Mr Nash: Oh, no. You can’t get out of it that way. The return has been there for two months. Mr Nash was proceeding to deal with the decision of the late bir Francis Bell regarding retrospective ■ legislation when Mr W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo) remarked that the Minister was securing a pretty good extension of time. He was called to order by Mr Speaker, who said that it was Mr Broadfoot’s duty to point out to Mr Speaker if he had noticed that an extension of time was being inadvertently given. He advised the Minister that his time limit had expired. Second Reading Passed. The Bill passed its second reading without a division and entered the committee stages, Mr Hamilton stating that he was sorry ahont the difficulty that had arisen. Perhaps, he added, the matter had got a little out of hand. Mr Nash: T quite understand. It is a personal matter. Mr Hamilton: Oh, no. I don’t think that it was personal. It arose from incidents last night. Mr Fraser pointed out that the member who was responsible for the refusal to grant extensions of time the previous evening was out of the House at the time. He added that Mr Hamilton could not take the responsibility for what had occurred. The Chairman of Committees (Mr E. J. Howard): Order. This is not in the Bill. Mr Coates asked any lawyer in the House to justify the retrospective taxation provision in the Bill or the naming of any particular company or person in a Bill of such a nature no matter what they might think per-

sonally of the action of any company in evading taxation. Mr J. A. Lee (Labour, Grey Lynn): AVhat about McArthur? Mr Coates: That is a remark which deserves the severest censure. The actions of the McArthur companies could be in no way compared with those of the AVailii company. Legislation justified. Mr Nash explained how the AVaihi company had distributed its profits overseas where they could not be taxed unless the present legislation were passed. In May, 1935, when the AVailii company was not actually carrying out goldmining operations in the country, a dividend of £91,866 was distributed. AVhile payment was being made the Commissioner of Taxes had advised the company that in view of the standing of the company no advance assessment of taxation need be made in connection with the dividend, but when the assessment was made the Commissioner had been informed that the company had gone into liquidation. Hie Martha Gold Mining Company (AVaihi), Limited, was practically a continuation of the, AVaihi company, and practically the same persons were shareholders. No one would deny that the payment of taxation 1 was due. AVith respect to retrospective legislation the Minister quoted cases where it had been used in cases of gift and stamp duties. AA r hen persons or companies were evading taxation which should be paid the Government was entitled to take measures to secure it. There had never been a clause" more justified than was the present one. Because the company was not carrying out gold mining operations when the dividend was paid, it had evaded taxation. At 9 p.m. the Prime Minister moved the closure on the short title. This was forced to a division by the Opposition and was carried by 48 votes to 17, the short title, being passed. Mr Hamilton asked the Minister if lie did not think it advisable to bring the State Advances Corporation accounts back into the Public Accounts. The corporation handled £50,000,000 and had a staff of possibly 1000, but the House did not have the opportunity of discussing the estimates. Mr Nash said if it was going to be advantageous he saw no reason why the voting of the estimates should not come before the House, .but there were reasons for keeping the Corporation accounts separate. Four more clauses Were passed without discussion. Two Amendments Included. Two new clauses amending the Finance Bill were introdilced by GovernorGeneral’s message. Mr Nash, explaining the provisions of the clauses, said, one stipulated that payments to returned soldiers who ( were holders of decorations, would not have the payments which were made under the award of those decorations included in income when, the latter was computed for purposes of sustenance or veterans’ allowance. Mr Coates: Does that include the V.C. and D.C.M. Mr Nash: Yes, all decorations of that class, some sixpence per day. The second amendment, said Mr Nash, prevented the tenant of a dwelling house from being evicted from that dwelling unless some alternative accommodation were available. In the event of the house being sold, the purchaser could not get possession of the house unless the tenant Had alternative accommodation. There was however, a provision for referring the case to a magistrate where hardship was inflicted on the purchaser through not being able to secure possession, of ! the dwelling. In that case the magistrate would be required to adjudicate on whether the greater hardship ivas being imposed on the purchaser or the tenant. The whole idea of the clause was to prevent tenants from being turned out of houses when they had, nowhere else to go and where the rent was paid, the tenants were net being a nuisance to the neighbours, and were not letting the premises. Mr H. M. Rushworth (Independent, Bay of Islands) moved an amendment to clause 11 to the effect that the £6,000,000 to be borrowed for public works should be borrowed only from the Reserve Bank. The .chairman ruled the amendment out of order because it must necessarily involve an appropriation. On the motion of Mr Bodkin, this ruling was referred to Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker ; ruled that the clause involved an appropriation and supported the ruling of the Chairman of Committees. Clauses 11 to 19 were passed, without discussion. Opposition Amendment. Mr Hamilton moved an amendment to clause 20 deleting the necessity for the Committee set up to consider hardship to refer their findings to the Minister, and also to widen the definition of serious hardship. The amendment was lost by 47 .votes to 16. After clause 36, dealing with the purchase of Picot Brothers, had been passed after the closure bad been carried by 47 votes to 14 at 2.10 a.m., rapid progress was made, the last clause in the original Bill, number 61, being passed by 2.53 a.m. The first of the new amending clauses, providing that returned soldiers who hold decorations should not have payments made in respect of those decorations computed as income when considering sustenance payments or veterans’ allowance, was passed without amendment.

JDiscussing the next amending Clause, preventing the eviction of tenants from dwelling houses, Mr Coates exi>ressed the opinion that the Government itself was responsible for the persent position of overcrowding in the cities by inducing people to go to the towns through its legislation. Mr Nash, answering questions by the Opposition, said that the Crown itself would be in the same position as a private landlord and would have to find accommodation for tenants before they could lie evicted from a house. Both landlords and tenants themselves would be required to search for suitable accommodation for a tenant when the house was required by the landlord. The Bill passed committee stages at 3.10 a.m., and was read the third time and passed. The House rose at 3.12 a.m.