SPECIAL SESSION ENDING

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 180, 28 April 1931, Page 10

SPECIAL SESSION ENDING

Insurable Property Tax Withdrawn DELICATE SITUATION OVERCOME Swift Passage to Earthquake Bill (From Our Parliamentary Representative.) By agreeing yesterday afternoon to postpone the debatable clauses in the Hawke’s Bay Earthquake Bill relating to . the imposition of a tax on insurable property, the Prime Minister facilitated the passage of the measure through the House of Representatives and made it possible for the third reading to be passed within a little over an hour. Incidentally Mr. Forbes extricated the Government from an embarrassing position, for the House was hopelessly divided on the question and had it been forced the Labour Party would have followed the Reform Party into th'e "noes” lobby. , This would have meant the defeat of the Government and its subsequent resignation, as the Prime Minister had stated previously that he would stand or fall by the taxation proposals of the Bill. As it was, his concession to the opposition parties will enable the emergency session to be brought to a close to-day. Mr. Forbes’s reason for agreeing to withhold the taxation proposals was that the wish had been expressed that the Government- should bring down the whole of its taxing legislation at the one time. He explained that, his original intention was to do this during the emergency session, but the changing state of the national finances and the continued increase in next year s prospective deficit would involve the recasting of the whole of this particular legislation. As this involved too great a task in the limited time available, he thought it wise to leave it until the ordinary session. With some degree of sarcasm, the leader of the Labour Party, Mr. H. E. Holland, congratulated Mr.- Forbes upon having avoided a “grave constitutional crisis.” He expressed his pleasure—for the sake of the earthquake legislation—that the Prime Minister had decided to “stand” and not “fall” by his proposals. The Leader of the Opposition, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, expressed the satisfaction of the Reform Party at the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister. He said that his party had never regarded the Bill as a party measure. While agreeing with Mr. Forbes that the London reserve fund, which was to be drawn on to the extent of £1,500,000 for rehabilitation purposes, should be repaid as soon as possible, he made the point that as it had been built up by means of general taxation it should be repaid from the same source.

There was practically no discussion on the Bill in Committee and it was passed speedily after the three party leaders had spoken. With the disposal of the third reading members placed on record their appreciation of the work of the Navy, Army and police in the days following the Hawke’s Bay disaster. All that is required to close the session is the approval of the Legislative Council to the Earthquake Bill and the Royal assent to other measures passed during the session. The House will meet at noon to-day, but the business will be of a formal nature.

CROWN TENANTS Rental Difficulties NO LEGISLATIVE AID The Government has no intention of introducing legislation to provide for a readjustment of Crown tenants’ rentals to assist them during the depression, according to a statement by the Minister of Lands, Hon. E. A. Sansom, in reply to an urgent question on the point by Mr. T. D. Burnett (Ref., Temuka), when the House met. Mr. Ransom said the Government’s attitude was that the depression was only temporary, and that it would not be right to make readjustments for present needs, for in some cases long, leases would be affected. A promise was given that every case of hardship would be treated sympathetically. Mr. Ransom said it was not proposed to bring down legislation to effect alterations! The Crown could not be expected to permit prices during a temporary de- • pression to be a governing factor in the fixing ■ of rents over periods that might range from 21 to 25 years. The Land Act of 1924 gave the power necessary for the remission or postponement of rent for a period not exceeding five years. Ifany small runholders were embarrassed, it was open to them to apply to-the Land, Bottrd for remission or postponement of' rent due. i Returned Soldiers in Difficulties. Au immediate investigation into the position of Crown tenants, particularly returned soldiers, who are finding it extremely difficult to carry on with their holdings owing to the abnormal drop, in the price of primary products, was sought by Mr. W. L. Martin (Lab., Raglan), in an urgent question addressed to the Prime Minister, who asked the- Minister of Lands to reply. Mr. Ransom said that in the first place the Government did not regard the present depression as other than temporary and that to make provision for it as if it were permanent would not be in the best interests of the Crown tenants, returned soldiers, or the country generally. So far as his department was concerned particularly generous treatment was being given to Crown tenants who found themselves in difficulties. APPOINTING JUSTICES No More Till After Next Session No more justices of the peace will be appointed until the end of next session. This statement was made by the Minister of Justice, Hon. J. G. Cobbe, in reply to a question by Mr. G. C. Black (Ind., Motueka), who pointed out that much inconvenience was being caused in country districts, particularly through the deaths of justices and the consequent depletion of numbers. The Minister said the last appointments were made only about two months ago, and in the ordinary course no other justices would be appointed until the end of next session. At the present time there were about 6000 justices in New Zealand, and that was sufficient to meet requirements. AID ■FOR WORKLESS Hospital Boards’ Duties Concern at a resolution passed by the Wanganui Hospital Board on April 22, when an instruction was issued that charitable aid should be confined to the sick and to widows and children, and that none should be given to unemployed able-bodied men or their dependants as from May 1, was expressed by Mr. F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino). He asked the Minister of Health, Hon. A.' J. Stallworthy, if he would immediately issue instructions to the board that ‘ assistance should be given in all eases of hardship and destitution caused through unemployment. The Minister said that instructions had already been given that aid inust be supplied in cases of hardship arising from unemployment. The Wanganui board had been communicated with as soon as the resolution was made known, and after the facts had been placed before it the board had readily agreed that assistance should not be withheld. Apparently the board did not realise its responsibilities fully, although it readily did so when representations were made to it. ARREARS OF RENT Wellington Hardship EJECTIONS THREATENED The question whether the Government would consider the amendment of the Distress and Replevin Act with a view to preventing landlords from ejecting tenants who were unable to pay their, rent because of unemployment, was asked by

Mr. P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central), on behalf of himself and other Wellington Labour members. Mr. Fraser asked whether the Government would consider amending the Act to compel landlords who contemplated ejecting tenants to apply to a magistrate so that both the landlord and the tenant could have an opportunity of stating their cases. He said such an amendment would give tenants a chance of receiving fair treatment. There were at present hundreds of families threatened with ejection, but they had no right of recourse to any court or other tribunal. The Prime Minister said he regretted to hear that there were landlords in Wellington exercising their power under the law against people who were suffering hardship through unemployment. He hoped this attitude was not general. One felt that in times like the present every consideration should be given to those who were “up against it.” If it were found in the interval between the end of the present session and the ordinary June session that more consideration was not being shown, the question would be investigated with a view to an amendment to the Act being introduced. “WAIT AND SEE” Brevity in Ministerial Reply No words were wasted by the Prime Minister when replying to a long categorical question by Mr. E. J. Howard (Lab.. Christchurch South), on behalf of Mr. M. J. Savage (Lab., Auckland West), as to the formation of a National Government and the postponement of the general election. If members had expected information they were doomed to disappointment, for no inkling of the Government’s attitude to these two subjects was given in Mr. Forbes’s brief answer. Mr. Howard asked the Prime Minister if he had read a circular dated April 17 issued by the New Zealand Employers’ Federation calling upon its members to express their opinions as to whether they were in favour of a National Government ajid the postponement of the general election ; also whether he had seen a similar circular issued by the Auckland Provincial Employers’ Federation. A statement for the guidance of the electors as to what attitude the Government proposed to take in the event of such representations being made to Cabinet was also sought by Mr. Howard. “No, I have not seen the circulars, neither have I received one,” said Mr. Forbes, amid laughter. “The honourable member asks me what the Government will do when the circular comes along; my answer to that is that he had better wait and see.” EARTHQUAKE FUNDS Validating Donations The Leader of the Opposition, Right Hon. J. G. Coates, asked the Prime Minister whether the Government would take steps to validate contributions to the earthquake relief funds by local bodies. He said he had been receiving communications from various local authorities which were anxious that steps should be taken at once to validate payments made from their general funds, but which were in addition to unauthorised expenditure. The Prime Minister said it was a pity the question was not raised when the Finance Bill No. 2 was before the House. However, there would be time next session to deal with it. It had been the intention of the Government to validate contributory payments. Mr. W. j. Polson (Ind., Stratford) : It is dealt with in the Earthquake Bill, clause 72. Mr. Forbes said he had an idea the question had been dealt with. Mr. Polson: It has been covered. Clause 72 of the Hawke's Bay Earthquake Bill, which was passed later in the afternoon, reads, in part: “All payments made by any local authority or any body to which this section applies to public funds established for the relief of distress or hardship due to the earthquake are hereby declared to have been validly made if made in accordance with the provisions of this section, and any such local authority or other body may hereafter make payments in accordance with such provisions to any such fund.” “CRISIS AVERTED” Earthquake Bill TAXATION DEFERRED Question Too Debatable The opinion that the Prime Minister had avoided a grave constitutional crisis by his action in postponing part three of the Hawke’s Bay Earthquake Bill, dealing with the imposition of the insurable property tax, which was to be applied to recouping the London reserve fund of the £1,500.000 to be drawn from it for rehabilitation purposes, was expressed by the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. 11. E. Holland, when the Bill came up for final consideration.

I The Bill came back from the Select Committee to which it had been referred with numerous amendments, details of which have already been given. Alterations were made in the incidence of the insurable property’ tax, but the House was hopelessly divided on the question and there was no likelihood of unanimity being reached. „ . Speaking on the short title, the Prime Minister recalled that he had previously promised that he would make a statement upon the tax. He said he had been asked whether he would agree to a reduction in the amount of the imposition, and the opinion had also been freely expressed that the proposal should have been brought down at the same time as the other taxing proposals contemplated by the Government. Increasing Deficit. It had been his intention to bring all the taxing proposals down during the emergency session, but while they were being considered next year’s prospective deficit had continued to increase, and instead of having to meet an estimated shortage of £4,500,000 the Government was faced with the problem of meeting an estimated shortage of £5,500,000. It had therefore been impossible to recast the taxing proposals in time for the present session, with the result that they ■would all be held over until June. Mr. A. Harris (Ref., Waitemata) : Is it still £5,500,000? “It still remains there,” replied the Prime Minister amid laughter. “I hope it will turn out better than that.” He said he hoped that when the revised estimates were drawn up the estimated deficit would not be so large. The estimates were being very carefully perused and departments had been asked to submit estimates in accordance with the decline in revenue and with an eye to the making of demands. One had to take the estimates of national income from those who had been engaged in handling revenue questions for years. In the circumstances the Government had considered it reasonable to postpone the question of the insurance tax until next session. Mr. Holland: Very wise. Mr. F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino) : A few more months in office. The Prime Minister said it was sometimes wise to let wisdom guide one’s actions. He thought the elimination of the taxing section of the Bill would ensure for it an easier passage than would otherwise have been the case. While the insurable property tax was being postponed, he did not feel that the country could neglect to replace the money in the reserve fund. This step was one of prudent finance. The position would be reviewed at the ordinary session. The objectionable features, if there' had been any, had been removed from the Bill, which had come back from the Select Committee in an improved form. “Doing As He Was Told.” “I think members appreciate very sincerely the statement by the Prime Minister,” said the Leader of the Opposition, Right Hon. J. G. Coates. Mr. Langstone: He is doing as he was told. Mr. Coates: I noticed a sigh of relief from the Labour members when the Prime Minister made his statement. Mr. J. McCombs (Lab., Lyttelton) : When he lost his majority. Mr. Coates said that when the Prime Minister introduced the Bill members were agreed that it should be treated as a non-party measure. The Minister of Labour, Hon. S. G. Smith: Some members wanted to put it through in one night. Mr. F. Waite (Ref., Clutha) : Then they woke up. Mr. Langstone (to Mr. Smith) ; It is a pity they did not put you through in one night. Mr. Coates said there were definite opinions that the insurable property tax would be a hardship for many. He could speak for his own district and he knew that hardship would be caused there if the tax were approved. He had no doubt that the reserve fund should be ’ recouped. Many felt, however, that as the fund had been built up from general taxation, it should be replaced by the same method. It was to be hoped that the rehabilitation of Hawke’s Bay would be speeded up, as people in the affected area were anxiously waiting to see what was going to be done. The question had been raised as to what form the relief would take, but, Mr. Coates added, it was considered that the adjustment court and the committees to be set up should work out a formula. Labour’s Congratulations. “I think the Government is to be congratulated upon dropping this section, and the Prime Minister particularly because he knows that by that action he has avoided a grave constitutional crisis,’’ said Mr. Holland. “Whatever else we cannot give the Prime Minister and his colleagues, we can congratulate them on their tenacity—to office. At one stage of this session the Prime Minister was charging us that the Labour Party, by opposing the Finance Bill, was holding up the earthquake legislation. “It is true we offered to put the Bill through in the quickest possible time. But what was made clear was that when the Prime Minister made that statement it was for purely political purposes because subsequent events proved that he did not have his earthquake legislation ready and that it could not have been in any circumstances delayed by our endeavour to save the wages of the working men of this country.” Mr. Holland added that he was one of those who believed that the taxation proposals contained in the earthquage legislation should not have been brought down in the Bill, but'that.they should have been included in a special taxing measure, so that they could have been dealt with separately on their merits. The Bill should not have been introduced if it contained anything that might have endangered the life of the present Government. At one stage the Prime Minister had been prepared to stand or fall by the property tax. It was pleasing to see that he had decided to stand instead of fall, although that pleasure was not engendered out of consideration for the Government, but for the sake of the earthquake legislation. The rehabilitation of the stricken area was a question of national importance, but the Bill did not go as far as it should. One gained the impression that rehabilitation was being made a question for solution locally. In the' first place the Government should not have drawn on the London reserve fund. Had it gone on the local market for a loan it would have ■ received a ready response, and in addition it could have raised money at a low rate of interest. As soon as the earthquake occurred the ■ Government should have set out to secure some estimate of total damage, and then ■ it should have appealed immediately to ■ Parliament for authority to raise a loan. There would have been no trouble in ' securing that authority. The whole question could have been dealt with much sooner than had been the case. The Labour Party did not intend to . move 1 any amendments, and any defects in the ! Bill would have to be left as the respon- ' sibility of the Government.

Compromise Question. Mr. A. E. Jull (U., Waipawa), said he was convinced that had the proposed tax been reduced to 1/- per cent., the State Fire Office would in all probability have carried sixpence of it, and that other companies would have followed suit." This would have meant that there would have been a tax of about 5/- on every £lOOO of insurance, so that the small farmer in the country would be paying about 5/- a year. “There has been a good deal of criticism passed on the Government for tile details in connection witli the Bill,” said Mr. .lull. "There has never been a Government in this or any other part of the world that has introduced legislation of this character. The people of Hawke’s Bay have a feeling of gratitude toward the Government for what it has done and is doing for them.” Had it not been for two members on the Select Committee the Prime Minister would have agreed to a compromise in regard to the taxation proposals contained in the Bill, Mr. Jull added. Statement Resented. Resentment at the attitude of the member for AVaipawa was expressed by Mr. A. E. Ansell (lief., Chalmers). The member for AVaipawa, he said, had made the statement that but for two members of the comniittce the Prime Minister would have brought in a compromise of a shilling and that as a result of their attitude Hawke’s Bay had to suffer. That

accusation, said Mr. Ansell, was most unjust. He objected to the insurance tax because it was iniquitous. He had taken up the same attitude in the House and the committee, and he would continue to oppose the tax if the proposal came up again. His attitude was that the tax was a compulsory levy. The Reform side of the House looked upon it as a tax on thrift. The Government and building societies had been encouraging working people in particular to become the owners of their homes—a very commendable object and one which should be developed—but the tax would place a brake on that, and those who were not thrifty enough to secure their own homes would escape the tax. Ability to pay should be the fundamental basis of the Mr. W. J. Polson (Ind., Stratford): Or of any other taxation. Details of Insurance. The Minister of Lands, Hon. E. A. Ransom, gave details of insurance covers held over the business areas in the affected areas. They were as follow: — Napier: Buildings, £797,797; contents, £731,300; buildings and contents combined, £172,598. Port Ahuriri: Buildings, £242,437; contents, £753,759; buildings and contents, £111,036. Hastings: Buildings, £433,559 ; contents, £548,339; buildings and contents, £117,259 Wairoa: Buildings, £103,228; contents, £114,937; buildings and contents, £5133. Totals: Buildings, £1,577,021; contents, £2,148,335; buildings and contents, £406,021. The total covers on buildings and contents amounted to £4,131,377. Mr. AV. E. Barnard (Lab., Napier) thought the Prime Minister had acted wisely in withdrawing part 111 of the Bill. He hoped that all haste would be made in constituting the court and the committee and that the best and most capable type of men would be selected as members. Alteration Welcomed. Mr. J. T. Hogan (Ind., Rangitikei) complimented the Prime Minister on the alterations made to the Bill. He hoped that when the House met again the Government would not reintroduce the insurance tax, which was a tax on property. Between now and next session he hoped the Government would find time to overhaul the whole incidence of taxation. The bulk of the taxation -was hitting people who employed labour —that was the root of New Zealand’s troubles to-day. Mr. D. Jones (Ref., Mid-Canterbury) said the Bill was now much better than before it went to the committee. He was glad to see the end of the tax. He would have had to oppose and vote against it. He would like an assurance that the withdrawal of part 111 did not affect the payments made to Hawke’s Bay or any of the relief funds. Mr. Ransom replied that the withdrawal of part 111 would not prejudice Hawke’s Bay in any way. Mr. H. M. Campbell (Ref., Hawke’s Bay) asked whether provision could be made for giving relief to private schools, many of which had suffered extensively. Mr. Ransom said he had the authority of the Prime Minister for saying that private schools were entitled to assistance. Apart from two hours’ debate on the short title there was practically no discussion on the clauses of the Bill. Speaking on the third reading, Mr. Barnard said he trusted the Bill would do the work it was intended to perform. It did not contain. everything he had wished for, but, if wisely administered, it could do a great deal in building up the devastated area of Hawke’s Bay. Everything depended on sympathetic administration. He was grateful to the committee and the House for the consideration given to the various proposals. Mr. Jull said he, too, desired to place on record the thanks of the people of Hawke’s Bay for the expeditious manner in which the Government, the House, and the committee had disposed of the Bill. He trusted that the excision of that portion of the Bill dealing with taxation would not militate against the Prime Minister providing additional money for the assistance of Hawke’s Bay should the Rehabilitation Committee require it x The Prime Minister said that the work of rehabilitation would be taken in hand in a practical way. He was quite confident that the district of Hawke’s Bay would be “put on the rails” once more. Every expedition would be used to achieve that object. That was his desire and his wish. The Bill was read a third time and passed. WORK OF THE NAVY Special Motion of Thanks Tributes to the rescue work carried out by the Navy following the earthquake in Hawke’s Bay on the morning of February 3 were paid by speakers from all sides after the Bill had been passed. The Prime Minister moved that the House tender its thanks to Rear-Admiral Geoffrey Blake and the officers and men of the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy for the signal service they had rendered. Mr. Forbes said that the work of the Navy, doctors, nurses, and others who went to the aid of the stricken people, was the one bright spot arising out of the earthquake. No one would cavill at the passing of a special vote of thanks for the services rendered by the Navy in the early stages of the earthquake. No one could have been more sympathetic or more considerate to the needs of the sufferers than they. The members of the Navy had not spared themselves in attending to the immediate wants of the people, and in addition had subscribed £535 for the relief funds. Commander Morgan’s Work. The motion was seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, who said that the Navy deserved the gratitude of the people of New Zealand. He did not want to individualise, and realised that the Navy worked as.a unit, but a special word of commendation was due to the commander of the Veronica, Commander Morgan. The Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. H. E. Holland, joined in the eulogistic references. He mentioned that one of the pleasing duties he had to perform after the earthquake was to convey from a party of construction workers in the Buller Gorge their appreciation of the work of ■Commander Morgan and the crew of the Veronica. “By its distinguished services at Napier the Navy maintained the best traditions of th#' service,” said the Minister of Defence, Hon. J. G. Cobbe. The Navy had done excellent work in rescuing the injured, recovering the dead, and in the demolition of dangerous buildings. Mr. Cobbe referred to the service rendered by the military authorities, and remarked that to both branches of the service, the Navy and the Army, the thanks of the House were due. Local Assistance. While not depreciating in any way what had been done by the Navy, Mr. H. M. Campbell (Ref., Hawke’s Bay) thought the work of the police and the territorials should be referred to in the motion. Mr. P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central) said he would have liked to see some reference to the men of the mercantile marine, seeing that the crew of the Northumberland and the Taranaki had participated in the rescue operations. Mr. AV. E. Barnard (Lab., Napier) and Mr. E. Jull (U., Waipawa) also joined in the general commendation of the Navy’s work, while Mr. J. A. Nash (Ref.. Palmerston) commended that of the Defence officers who had charge of the refugee camp at Palmerston North. The motion was carried, and Mr. Speaker was asked tq forward it to RearAdmiral Blake. ECONOMY MEASURES Council Passes Finance Bill INSURANCE SAVINGS Finance Bill No. 2, which gives effect to the recommendations of the Economy Committee, was passed by the Legislative Council yesterday. Speaking on the second reading, the Hon. G. M. Thomson said that the Bill

represented an earnest endeavour to place the finances of the country upon a sound basis. There was, however, one clause which he thought would operate to the detriment of New Zealand. He referred to the reduction in the grant to the New Zealand Institute. This body was performing valuable work, and he was that the reduction of the vote from £l5OO to £750 would impair efficiency. The Hon. W. Snodgrass, touching upon the clause relating to the combining of technical and secondary schools for the purposes of control, suggested that a much greater saving would be brought about by an amalgamation of primary and technical education. The Hon. J. A. Hanan said that much more would be required in the way of State economies than was represented in the Bill. New Zealand was reaching the point when further taxation would be inimical to the best interests of the country. One had to take a long view of things to consider the ultimate effect of taxation. “Are we going to hand down to coming generations a burden of debt which will handicap their progress and their prosperity?” he asked. The Right Hon. Sir Francis Bell raised the question whether there was a legal objection to paying to the Consolidated Fund, from the Government Life Insurance Office, the savings in salaries effected by the Finance Act. He stated that it was a question whether the policyholders should not be given the benefit of such savings. “We are establishing some very bad precedents,” said the Hon. J. B. Gow. He maintained that the savings in salaries should be returned to the policyholders in the form of increased bonuses. The Hon. Sir William Hall-Jones: They will get tjie same bonus as before. Mr. Gow ■ That is not the question at all. The Hon. Sir James Allen said he doubted very much whether policy-hold-ers in other companies would benefit by the reduction in salaries of the staffs. He suggested that the operation of the clause might be limited to a definite time. “This Bill is evidence of the desperate straits in which the Government finds itself,” said the Hon. AV. Earnshaw. “What strikes me about the Bill is that the Government has put its hand out in every direction except one. It has restrained its hand from touching luxuries. We find it has left drinking, gambling, and racing severely alone. lam not a wowser, but I say here are sources of revenue which might well be exploited.” The Attorney-General, Sir Thomas Sidey, said lie was prepared to consider the point raised by Sir Francis Bell, and also the question of limiting the operation of the clause. There was no intention of departing from the system of placing aside from the profits of the Post Office a certain amount for depreciation and renewals. The Government would see to it that there was paid into the reserve fund an amount similar to that of past years. Any further surpluses such as might accrue from reduced wages and the new postal charges would be paid into the Consolidated Fund. He sympathised with the New Zealand Institute, realising as he did the excellent work this body was doing. He was hopeful that something would be done in the near future to at any rate partly restore the grant to the institute. So far as the amalgamation of schools was concerned, Sir Thomas said the wishes of the governing bodies would not be disregarded.