THE EARTHQUAKE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 98, 28 April 1931, Page 9

THE EARTHQUAKE

RELIEF BILL PASSED

LITTLE OBJECTION

TIME THE ESSENCE

With, its most contentious clauses removed—those relating to the insurance tax—the Hawkes Bay Earthquake Bill was given quick passage by the ICouse of Representatives yesterday. Littlo objection was raised to the remaining clauses, and the Bill was passed before 5.30 p.m., when the House adjourned until to-day.

A message was received from tho Governor-General recommending that provision be made in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on. the Hawkos Bay Earthquake Bill. , The House then went into Committee on the Bill.

Speaking on the short title, the Prime Minister said ho proposed to withdraw the part of the Bill dealing ■with the insurance tax. There was-a feeling that the whole of the Government's taxation proposals should come down at the one time, and as it was impossible to do that this session he proposed to hold the whole matter over until next;session.

Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labour Party): "You are very wise." (Laughter.) . Mr. Forbes said he always tried to do the wise thing. .Although he: was ■withdrawing the tax ho believed it would still be necessary for the Government to build 'up its London reserves again. "AS HE WAS TOLD.". The Leader of the Opposition (the Eight Hon. J. G! Coates) said that tho members -of the Reform Party appreciated what tho Prime Minister was doing. Mr. F. Langstono (Labour, Waimatino): "Ho did aa he was told." '"I would be proud to spoak for tho members of tho Labour Party also," said Mr. Coates. "I noted a sigh of distinct relief from individual members when tho Prime Minister made his statement." It had been suggested when the Bill was introduced that it was a non-party measure, and he had never taken any other view. Mr. Ji. M'Combs (Labour, Lyttelton): "It is a great victory, for the Opposition." Mr. Coates said that after all tho position "was a somewhat difficult one, and there were definite opinions that the tax would prove a hardship. He had no doubt as to the necessity to repay to the Reserve Fund the money that was being taken for earthquake relief purposes. The fund was maintained for the purpose of meeting emergencies. Many members felt that as the fund had been built up from general taxation, it was only fair to suggest that it should be rebuilt from general taxation. There was justification for the objection, to building up the fund by the method of taxation proposed in tho'BilL Mr. Coates expressed the hope that relief for the- people of Hawkes Bay would be speeded up. Until the proposed committees were set up and a proper organisation set in motion it was not possible to offer any organised effort for -the relief of the earthquake sufferers. Tho mere delaying of the taxation proposals would not affect the question of relief. Mr. Coates said that they would not know how much was required until the Court and the Committee had been set up and had investigated the position. He hoped that there would be no delay iv putting the machinery into action. The BUI as it stood would be very effective, and the Prime Minister had facilitated its passage Very ,much by the deletion of part three, thus allowing the taxation proposals to stand over until the ordinary session. CRISIS AVOIDED. **I wish to congratulate the Government on, having decided to drop part ■three of the Bill," said the Leader of 1 the Labour Party (Mr. H. E. Holland). He said that if tho Prime Minister had decided to push this section^ through a serious constitutional position might have-arisen. The Government was to be congratulated on its tenacity. The Prime'Minister|had charged the Labour Party, during the passage of the Fiuance Bill, with holding up the earth- . quake legislation, but it was cloa.rvtbat he lad done so for purely party purposes. It lad since been proved that the Government did not have the legislation randy, and that the passage of the Bill k»4 not been, delayed by the Labour f^rtf '* stand against the reduction of ■workers' wages. Mr. Hol- ' land said that he had always held the opinion that the ' taxation proposals should not have .been, incladod in. the Bill, but should have been included in a separate Bill, so as to eliminate the possibility of the life of the Government being endangered over the re» habilitation of Hawkes Bay. "I am told that at one stage the Prime Minister decided to stand or fall by the property tax," said Mr. Holland, "and I am glad he came to a decision to stand and not fall—not because of the Government, but for the sake of the earthquake legislation." He would not do anything to retard the passage' of the Bill. He had maintained all along that the Government should not liave taken the reserve fund in London, but should have raised the money locally. - A LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY. As it stood, the legislation tended to make Ihe responsibility a local one instead of a national one. Straight-out grants should have been made to local bodies, in. addition to the loans which were necessary, and grants should have also been made in. individual cases for rehabilitation purposes. At the beginning the Government should have made an attempt to estimate the extent of the damage. It could then ha,ve approached Parliament and have stated the amount required for the work of rehabilitation. He did iipt think that £1,500,000 would bo anything like the amount required. The work of rehabilitation should proceed without any delay whatover. The trouble with matters of this nature was that there was always unnecessary delay. The work of clearing away the debris could have'been started before the passage of the legislation., It. was necessary that the powers of the Adjustment Court should be wide, and he hoped that it would not be whittled down. The fact that the Chief Justice was on the Court should influence members. The district of Hawkes Bay would make a quick recovery once the work of rehabilitation was commenced, and in two or three years' time Napier and Hastings would be amongst the most prosperous towns in the Dominion. One of the most discreditable features of the earthquake had been the discreditable attitude taken up by the private insurance companies, and he hoped that conditions would be framed so as to make it impossible for them to dodge paying out on fire caused by earthquake. Not only had they refused to pay ont, but they had attempted to prevent tho Government from making a payment. The provision not to pay out was not written into the policy itself, but was written in the smallest of small print' on the back. The action, of the private insurance companies should make the people of Hawkes Bay, at any rate, ret&gnim TErtee they go* the best Ueat*

ment. There was no need for further evidence of the desirability of j insuring in the State Office. . ' ' tax' will be needed. Mr. A. E.. Jull (United, Waipawa) said he was pleased that the Prime Minister had withdrawn the insurance tax proposal, but only because he wanted to see the Bill passed expeditiously. He personally believed that . somo form of tax would bo necessary, and he regretted that the Committee had not been able to bring down a unanimous recommendation. He hoped that next session the House would agree to taxation to assist the people of the Hawkes Bay district. -Mr.' Jull defended the. measure which had been introduced by tiro Government, and said tho people of Hawkes Bay wore grateful for what had been done. But for two members of tho Committee the Primo Minister would have agreed to a compromise. The Minister o£ Lancls (tho Hon. E. A. Ransom) gave details of insurance covers held over the business areas in the affected areas. They were as follows:—Napier: Buildings, £797,797; contents, £731,300; buildings and contents combined, £172,505. Port Ahuriri: Buildings, £342,437; contents, £753,759; buildings and contents, £111,03(3. 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 cdvers on buildings and contents amounted to £4,131,377. Mr. A. E. Ansell (Reform, Chalmers) said the Reform Party resented very strongly any suggestion that it was responsible for the people of Hawkes Bay not getting all they were entitled to. He for one had objected to tho principle of the tax all along, and if the same proposal were brought up next session it was more than probable he would oppose it again. The Reform Party regarded the insurance iax as a tax on thrift, as people who had not provided homes for themselves would escape it. LOSING- NO TIME. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier) expressed gratification at tho withdrawal of the taxation proposal, and said he hoped the Government would lose no time in putting the machinery of the Bill into operation. The Bill did not contain all that he desired, but he believed it was at least workable, and any necessary amendments could be made next session. ' Mr.' J. T. Hogan (Independent, Eangitikei) congratulated.the Prime Minister on his withdrawal of the property tax and said .that many members had been prepared to fight that principle being restored to the Statute Book. He hoped the Government would overhaul the incidence of taxation in the recess. A master hand was needed to grip the financial position of the country. The Government should, realise that the principal trouble to-day was that private wealth was not circulating; he hoped that next session the whole incidence of taxation would be altered. The House was not opposed to the re-estab-lishment of the London reserve fund, but to the method of .re-establishing it. Mr. D. Jones (Reform, Mid-Canter-bury) said he was glad to see the end. of the insurable property tax, which he would have strongly opposed. Mr. Jones resented Mr. Jull's remarks, and asked if he was speaking with the authority of the Government. The section of the Bill which was being withdrawn did not affect the relief to Hawkes Bay Mr.' E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South) congratulated the Opposition on its great victory in. having the objectionable part of tho Bill withdrawn. That part of the measure had no relation whatever to the Bill, aud should uot have been included. He recognised that the fund had been very useful, and that it was desirable that lit should be built up again.

THE LOSSES. . Mr. Ransom said that shortly after the disaster the Public Works Department was instructed to furnish an estimate of the losses, caused by the earthquake. So far only approximate figures were available,'- as follows: —Government losses, £580,000; local body losses (including > Napier Hospital), £.500,000; private and business losses, "£2,200,000. Mr. Ransom referred to, the financial assistance available or in sight under the following heads:— Grants from Consolidated Fund for the immediate relief of distress, £2800; grants from Consolidated Fund for clearing the streets in Napier, Hastings, and Wairoa, £20,000; grants' for special commitments-regarding urgent restoration of public utilities at Napier, £5000; grants for repairs Hawkes Bay Rivers Board, £5000; special departmental contingency expenditure, £1000; expenditure from the Unemployment Fund, £9500; loans from Consolidated Fund for Napier borough shops, Hastings borough, shops, and Hawkes Bay Rivers Board, £17,000; estimated cost of repairs from Main Highways funds, £85,000; ex gratia payments % State Fire Insurance Office (about), £50,000; present subscriptions to Prime Minister's Earthquake Relief Fund, abont £.326,000; proposed amounts from London Reserve Funds, £1,500,000; -earthquake insurance payable by insurance companies, £225,000. Grand total, .£2,226,000. These figures, said the Minister, did not include special outside funds such .aa the Red Cross. Further, they did not include assistance being afforded by the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Account, the State Advances Department, and the Public Trust Department. The extent to which that assistance would be given was not yet known. Mr. Barnard said that the full amount of tho Prime Minister's fund would not be available for future distribution, as a good deal of it had already been spent in providing food and other relief. He thought the local body losses wonld be far more,than the £500,000 stated. The figures quoted should not be accepted as necessarily authoritative. , The first clause was thereupon agreed to. MAKING OF GRANTS. The Leader of the Labour Party asked if the Government had any fixed policy in regard to tlfe • making of grants to local bodies and individuals. It would be a great help if the Government made.an announcement. The Minister of Lauds said it was the intention of the Government to be guided very largely by the recommendations of the Rehabilitation Commission.

Mr. H. M. Campbell (Reform, Hawkes Bay) said it would.be appreciated by a large number of people in. the affected areas if some small amount were grant- j ed for the rehabilitation of homes. If | an all-round amount of £100 were granted jt would;go a long way towards assisting a number of people whose homes had been damaged.., Mr. Ransom then moved to permit the Commissioner of Taxes to release taxpayers wholly or in part, at his discretion, from liability to pay land or income tax for any one or, more of the years ending 31st March, 1932 to 1936, instead of the years 1931 to 1935. Mr. Ransom- said the alteration was to make the clause refer to tho assessment years, and did not affect the meaning of the clause. The clause was agreed to as amended. '■■; The Bill was passed. The Bill was passed by the Legislative Council this morning, without amendment. ...