FURTHER RELIEF

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 47, 25 February 1933, Page 12

FURTHER RELIEF

, FARM MORTGAGORS

PLEA FOR THE CITIES

fAS UNUSUAL DIVISION

The Mortgagors and Tenants ReKef Amendment Bill was put ' through all its stages in the House of Representatives last evening. A move by Mr. W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) to have the benefits of the Bill extended so as to cover tenants of house properties /was tinsuccessful. The Chairman of Committees ruled that the amendment Tyould be ineffective, and a somewhat, unusual turn developed when Mr. Nash moved to report progress so that the ruling of Mr. Speaker could be 6btained. The Chairman stated that he had considered the amendment thoroughly during the tea adjournment. The motion to report progress went to a division. It was defeated by 34 votes to 23. \. Mr.-W. J. Poison (Government, Stratford) urged an all-round decrease in interost rates. The reduction was long overdue, he said, and it had to be faced. He deprecated suggestions that the farmers were being spoon-fed and said they were receiving nothing like the assistance the farmers- in Australia received. . PROTECTION TOR OTHERS. Mr. H. Gr. B. Mason (Labour, Auckland Suburbs) asked if it would not be possible to protect the man. with less than £50 worth of goods as well as the man who had £9000 -worth of property. Tlie time to save the people Teas now, "before it was too late. Mr, A. J, Stallworthjr (Independent, Eden) remarked that it_ migkt be said the legislation -was designed to boost up inflated land values. He' deprecated anything that would tend to imperil the sanctity of contracts and— investments. Mr. IP. Langstone (Labour, 'SVaimarino) said that goods and chattels Should be protected. Mr. H.S. S. Kyle (Government, Bicearton) said mortgagees should have the right to have their cases reviewed periodically. Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) contended that what had been said in favour of the farmer applied also to the city dweller. Similar protection should be given to both see"tions of the community. Mr. A. Stuart (Government, Bangiiikei) said that interest rates would have to be reduced. Legislation like that-before the House was only playing with the situation. /..Mr. A. S. Bichards (Labour, Eoskill) ?aid there was nothing in the Bill from a- national point of view. It should: 'be redrafted. EXTENDING THE PRINCIPLE. , Mr. W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) contended that people with weekly tenancies should receive consideration. He did not complain about the provisions of the Bill, but urged that the principle underlying it should be extend«i The Government's proposals, though helpful over a transitory period, woulds not solve the country's problems. Mr. D. McDougall (Government, Mataura) said that unless the capital value of'land was reduced by nearly half, very little relief would be given to; the small farmer. The Bill gave insufficient relief.' Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central) also made a plea on behalf of distressed people in the cities. Eeplying, the Minister of Justice (the Hon. J. G-. Cobbe) said that an amendment to the Distress and Replevin Act did not' come under his department, but something might be heard of a measure in the next day or two. The second reading was agreed to. AMENDMENT MOVED. In the Committee stages Mr. W. Nash, moved that a sub-clause be added to clause 4, to extend the benefits of the Bill to tenants of house properties. "When the Committee resumed after the tea adjournment the Chairman of (Mr. S. G. Smith) said that' he had gone into the matter thoroughly, and he ruled the amendment out .of order on the ground that ft-would be ineffective. ' Labour ' members supported' ■ Mr. Nasals request that the ruling-of Mr. Speaker. should be obtained, and Mr. Nash moved that progress be reported. The motion was challenged, and a division was called for. While' the bells •were ringing several Government members -urged that the matter should not be taken to a division. The amendment was defeated by 34 votes to 23; Government members who voted with the Labour Party were Messrs. T. D. Burnett, A. M. Samuel, &. A. Wright, and the Hon. "$". Downie Stewart. On the third reading Messrs. P. leaser (Labour, Wellington Central) and Nash said that Mr. Speaker's opinion should have been obtained, and Mr. , Samuel said that the request for Mr. Speaker's-Tnling ishould never have been opposed. The Prime Minister (the Et. Hon. 6.: W. Forbes) pointed out that the Chairman of Committees had taken advantage of the adjournment to go thoroughly into the question. He said that there was a difference between the present case and others, in that when the Chairman was occupying the Chair he was called on to give a ruling on the spur of the moment. Mr. Samuel: Surely there is a higher authority than the Chairman? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. E. Holland) said that there were two points: whether the Committee was entitled to question the. Chairman's ruling,, and whether it was permissible "to obtain Mr. Speaker's opinion. There was no hostility to the Chairman, who was not prepared to agree that Mr Speaker be called. Mr. Smith: I haven't the power. • Mr. Holland: He has power to say he would agree if the Committee was agreeable. Undoubtedly there was a majority in favour of Mr. Speaker being called^ but the Prime Minister made it a party matter. Mr. Forbes: Oh, no. Mr. Holland said that there was probably a feeling among the majority of members that a wrong ruling might f. aTB. Jeen given. He considered tsat the whole responsibility of tho matter must rest on the shoulders of the Prime Minister. ' The Bill was passed.