Parliament FIRST DIVISIONS THIS SESSION

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 242, 9 July 1938, Page 12

Parliament FIRST DIVISIONS THIS SESSION

Another No-Confidence Amendment Io Address-in-Reply Motion UNEXPECTED DEVELOPMENT IN HOUSE Introduction Of Four Bills; Control Of Surveying Profession I I Although 55 speakers have now taken part in the Address-in-Reply debate in the House of Representatives, it is unlikely that the discussion will finish before next Wednesday, when a vote is expected on the no-confidence amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Six Government speakers, including two Ministers, one Opposition member and an Independent spoke yesterday. ■ , . An unexpected development in the late afternoon was the action of Mr. A. C. A. Sexton (Independent, Frank'in) in moving a further no-confidence amendment to the Address-in-Reply motion. The grounds of the amendment were that the Government had taken no steps to abolish fixed political parties in the. House, nor had it provided for the taking of a free and impartial vote. The subsequent divisions were the first this session, and in oiie case there was the odd spectacle of Government and Opposition members voting together' in one lobby. As a result of the voting Mr. Sexton s amendment was defeated, and the Opposition amendment shorn of its seven points of indictment against the Government. All that now remains of the amendment is that we deem it our duty to represent to Your Excellency that Your Excellency’s Advisers have forfeited the confidence, of the House.” Four Bills were introduced by Governor-General’s Message during the day. One measure consolidates the law relating to the control of the surveying profession, constitutes a Survey Board, and incorporates the Institute of Surveyors. Another incorporates the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting, and a third measure is designed to overcome difficulties associated with the adjustment of disputes by arbitration between private individuals. The Municipal Corporations Amendment Bill, which was introduced last session for circulation to local bodies, was reintroduced. The House adjourned at 5.30p.m. until Tuesday. The Address-in-Reply debate in the Legislative Council was completed yesterday. The council adjourned until July 19.

LOCAL BODIES AND AMALGAMATION Evidence To Continue HON. W. E. PARRY EXPLAINS HIS ATTITUDE The fate of the Local Government (Amalgamation Schemes) Bill was referred to by the Minister of Internal Affairs, Hon. W. E. Parry, when speaking in the Address-in-Reply debate in the House of Representatives yesterday. The Minister refuted a suggestion that he was running away from principles which he had enunciated last session, and said that the special committee which had been set up to hear evidence on the Bill would continue with its task until it was in a position to bring down a recommendation. Mr. Parry said that those who were concerned about the fate of the Bill had no need to worry. He could assure them that he would continue to pursue every possible avenue and that ample discussion would be allowed before anything final was done. He did not think that attitude conflicted ■ in any way with the statements he had made last, session, He was well aware when he introduced the Bill that there was an important principle involved. The Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Adam Hamilton: Your proposals didn’t get a very healthy reception. V “Got On Very Well.” * Mr. Parry': That is questionable. I got on very well with the county councils, and without casting any reflection upon previous Governments I think I can say I made real progress toward a proper understanding of our problems. A good relationship was established. and that was worth while even if nothing else was achieved. Mr. Hamilton: They are very able.Mr. Parry: Yes, and the Minister is very reasonable, too. When I embarked upon this very important question I knew the difficulties involved, and I knew the responsibilities that rested upon me. I wanted the assistance of the local bodies. .[ was not very popular with local members in some of the districts I visited. The Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes (Opposition, Hurunui): We gave you a good time in Christchurch. Mr. Parry: Yes, they very nearly agreed with me there. The House will appreciate my position. I wasn’t visiting the districts to spend a lot of money. The business people knew 1 was not going to do that, and they were not concerned about my arrival. The local members of Parliament knew I was treading a pretty thorny path, and of course they weren’t anxious to play the band when I came to town. However, I ploughed my own furrow and didn’t involve the members if I could help It.

On going through the country, added Mr. Parry, he did not find one local body which did not believe in the need for "reform, but which was itself prepared to allow its own interests to be affected. It was a most extraordinary state of affairs, but there it was. Question of Best Method. “I know I have a good case,” said the Minister, "and the local bodies know it, too. It is just a question of working out the best method.” Mr. Forbes: What about converting the ratepayers'? The Minister: Wo will convert them. The lion. member would be surprised to see the correspondence 1 have received from people who were opposed to the Bill but who have since come to see considerable merit in it. Almost a revolution has taken place among a number of those people. Concluding witl\ a reference to the no-confidence amendment before the House, Mr. Parry said he could not congratulate the Leader of the Opposition upon the kernel of his address. Mr. Forbes: The four colonels' (Laughter.) Mr Parry: That has a very very questionable odour. Mr Forbes: What odour'? Mr Parry: If I were the Leader ot the Opposition I vAuthl he very careful about that. lam just putting tli.it to the right honourable gentleman. Mr. Forbes: Is that a threat'? Mr. Parry: Oh. no. I would never threaten the right honourable gentlenjan.

SURVEY WORK Stricter Control Over Profession MEMBERSHIP OF INSTITUTE COMPULSORY Provision for z control of the profession of surveying are contained in the Surveyors Bill which was Introduced in the House of Representatives by Governor-General’s message yesterday. The Bill is largely a consolidating measure, constituting a survey board, providing for the incorporation of the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, membership of which for practising surveyors will be compulsory, and laying down rules to govern the practice of surveying generally. The Survey Board is to consist of the Surveyor-General, as chairman, and four surveyors appointed by the Minister of Lands, two of them to be appointed on the recommendation of the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors. The board is given power to appoint a secretary and other officers. The Bill makes it mandatory for all practising surveyors to be members of the institute. Annual practising certificates must be taken out by all surveyors. Rules are set out for the election of a council of the institute and the powers of the council' are defined. Register to be Kept.

Detailed provisions are made for the registration of surveyors, with a definition of the necessary qualifications, and it is stated that applications for registration will come before the Survey Board. A register of surveyors is to be kept and certificates of registration are to be issued. Disciplinary powers are to be vested in the board. The practice of surveying is defined under the Bill, which also makes it illegal for unregistered persons to act as surveyors. Provision is made for the collection of fees by the board and for the payment of fees to the institute.

Miscellaneous clauses provide for the constitution of a board of appeal, presided over by a magistrate, and for the making of regulations. “The principal feature of the Bill is the provision that registered surveyors should be-members of the Surveyors Institute,” said the Minister of Lands, Hon. F. Langstone, when the Bill was introduced. “Compulsory unionism,” commented the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes -(Opposition, Hurunui).

“This is just the same provision as there is for lawyers and accountants,” Mr. Largstone said. "The Bill also provides for members of the institute to contribute about. £l5O • year toward the funds of Hie Survey Board, which will issue certificates to surveyors.’’ “Will this affect the cost of surveys?” asked the Rt. Hon. J, G. Coates (Opposition. Kaipara). Mr. W. J. Polson (Opposition, Stratford) : It must increase the cost. Fees by Regulation. "I take it that the scale of fees will be set out by regulation,” the Minister said, “but I don't know that there will be any increase in the cost of surveys.” Mr. Polson said that when large estates were being cut up it was very often necessary to resurvey the whole block to have one piece cut off. The costs were consequently so high as to be almost prohibitive, and be thought Hie Minister might very well look into that point. Mr. Langstone: It will he the duty of the Surveyor-General, who will be chairman of the Survey Board, to see. that Hie charges are not prohibitive. "My experience has been entirely satisfactory,” said Mr. Coates, "but I know of a case in which a property was being cut up where the survey costs amounted to about 15/- an acre or almost £6O a section. That is deli nitely a stumbling block to closer settlement.” Mr A C. A. Sexton (Independent, Franklin) said that in cases where neighbouring farmers wished to exchange pieces of land the same ditlicultv frequently arose. Mr. Langstone. in reply, said the scale of charges would have to be approved by the Minister, which should provide protection for the public. The Bill was read.a first time.