COMPANY LAW

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 143, 14 December 1933, Page 17

COMPANY LAW

BILL BEFORE COUNCIL

PROTEST AND ANSWER

The Companies Bill was read a second time by the Legislative Council yesterday, and the remaining stagq§ of the ( Bill were delayed in order to- give the Statutes Revision Committee of the Council an opportunity to study tho amendments which have been made to I the measure since it was first placed before the House of Representatives. . In continuing the debate on tho second reading the Hon. M. Fagan said that he would like to have seen the legislation brought down many years ago. Under the existing legislation it was a case of "buyers beware" when it came to the selling of shares, but under the Bill it was a case of "sellers beware." There was ample evidence that in recent years many companies had been floated which should never have been permitted. There had been so many swindles in the mining industry that it wag a wonder any investors were left with confidencel in that industry. He had never been able to see th« difference between some mining promoters and confidence men. The Hon. C. J. Carrington said that the development of the country had been retarded by the obsolete company law of the past. Not only had there been abuses in mining company flotations, but there had also been abuses in. connection with land settlement schemes. The Hon. E. McCallum said that h« had no faith in companies. Not five in one hundred of the companies which were formed returned dividends, although that might be a bold thing ta say. By fraud and chicanery people had been taken down.' In many instances companies were floated with the deliberate idea of taking the publio down. He welcomed the Bill as .it would protect people who had diligently, saved their money but who had little or no knowledge of how to invest it. He thought that the clause governing share-hawking should be made much more drastic. ' , AMENDMENTS IN HOUSE. The Bight Hon. Sir Francis Bell said that if a Bill of a technical nature had been carefully drawn up by an expert committee it was mischievous to interfere with the language in which the Bill was drafted, although it was competent for Parliament to consider whether the- language included all the provisions it was intended should be included. But for one unfortunate action he would have been content to allow the Bill to pass the Council as a formality. On the last day the Bill was before the House of Representatives sheets of amendments had been introduced at the suggestion of members without the possibility of due consideration and he for one would not accept responsibility for the amendments as he -had had no opportunity of givingl them proper consideration. He would have been happy to accept the original language of" the Bill, subject only to such amendments as the- Crown Law Office desired, but he could not accept a Bill into which a number of amendments had been inserted in the Lower House without proper consideration. The Council was invited to debar itself from consideration, not of the language of the English Statute, but of th* language somebody thought fit to propose for the New Zealand Statute. He had no desire to hamper the business of the Government; but he could not take responsibility for the provisions of the Bill in the present circumstances. If the Minister did not wish' the Council to take time to consider tha Bill he would possibly be able to force his will on the Council, but if the Bill was passed by the Council it should be made clear that the Council was not to blame for ill-considered matter appearing in the measure. The Hon. R. Moore said that the Council was a revisory chamber, and should have an opportunity to carry] out its functions. , The Hon. Sir James Allen said that he had been impressed by tlie remarks of Sir Francis Bell, especially in regardto the amendments which had been inserted in the Bill. He hoped that those amendments would be referred to the Statutes Revision Committee for in« vestigation. The Hon. W. H. Mclntyre said that in his opinion share-hawkers should ba licensed. COMMITTEE CONSULTED. In reply Mr. Masters said that while! the Bill was before the House of Representatives the whole of the amendments which had been proposed had been referred to the expert Committee before they were accepted by the Government. All the amendments Which' had been suggested by different parties and in the House had been carefully, considered by the expert Committee, and only those amendments which the Committee had endorsed were' inserted in the Bill. No other amendments had* been put into the Bill in the • Lower House. He wished to make that point clear, as it had been suggested that the; Bill had been altered by the Committee; of the House. In view of the large amount of legislation to come before the House in the next few days, he was desirous of pushing ahead with the business of the Council, but he had no objection to allowing the Bill to go before the Statutes Revision Committee which would report this afternoon. Sir Francis Bell said that the Minis* ter's clear explanation had cleared up) the point he had raised satisfactorily. ' The Bill was read a second time and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee.