HOUSE’S LONG SITTING

Greymouth Evening Star, 20 December 1933, Page 7

HOUSE’S LONG SITTING

FINANCE BILL DEBATE ’QUAKE INSURANCE RISKS [pee press association.} WELLINGTON, December IS). The House of Representatives met at 10.30 a.m. Mr. Jones - asked whether the Government proposed to adopt the recommendation of the Industries and Commerce Committee, that tobacco be removed from the schedule of the Board of Trade Act. Mr. Forbes said that the matter was under consideration and if possible, would be dealt with this session. Mr. Coleman asked whether it was the intention of the Government to set up a parliamentary committee to investigate local body rating on Crown lands, as sought in a recent petition on which a favourable report had been presented by the committee of the House.

Mr. Forbes said it was not proposed to set up a special committee since the matter would be dealt with by the Local Body Commission. Moving the second reading of the Finance Bill (No. two), Mr. Coates said it was a huge document of many clauses, several of which, under strictly correct parliamentary procedure, should be included in separate bills. He pointed out that the House had seldom been called upon to pass so many comprehensive measures, such as the Reserve Bank Bill, Companies Bill, and Municipal Corporations Bill, as it had passed this session. This heavy task had demanded an enormous amount of meticulous care on the part-of the Law Drafting Office, and there had thus not been time to prepare in separate bill form, the individual items of legislation that it was necessary to bring before *. Parliament this session.

The Minister said the clause dealing with exemption of earthquake risks in connection with the workers compensation was probably the most important in . the bill. It had been rendered necessary by the recent Privy Council decision. The position was that contingent liability was so immeasurable that insurance companies had stated their inability to undertake it. If private companies withdrew from insuring against workers’ compensation claims, the whole burden would fall on the State office which might be unable to meet the liability. It was useless to expect the employers themselves to take a risk that was considered beyond the resources of insurance companies. Mr. Parry: This provision is not retrospective? Mr. Coates: No, it is not retrospective. , . The Minister said it had been made ■quite clear that if the Privy Council’s decision was to apply to the future, the insurance companies _ would definitely withdraw from this class of business. Referring to the clauses regarding payments under irrigation agreements the . Minister said it was intended to amend them so that they would apply only to future finance, so far as the land was concerned. Those who were, financing farmers, so far as stock was concerned, were under the present cncumstances getting grazing absolutely free. The provisions in the bill constituted an entirely new procedure and they might be dangerous, but it was the Government’s duty to take a reasonable care that the State s pi operty was at least preserved. Mr. Coates said that since the Hawke’s Bay disaster, the Government had been seriously concerned to find some way of mitigating the fnancia 1 loss which severe earthquake entail ed, without having recourse to. public funds for rehabilitation purposes as had been necessary in 1931. xt been established that the greatest dam age to property was from fire followtag the earthquake, but in common with the practice in other _ parts ot the Empire, New Zealand file insur ance policies did not ordinarily pro vide against loss by fil ? .?on°were earthquake. If such protection required it was necessary to contract for it specially, and pay increased p . mium, which was relatively high and more than the average msuiei pay It was also the case that tl lessons taught by earthquake. disaster were soon forgotten by the commu ity in general, and property owneis were inclined with the return to normal, to dispense with special nisui ance against the consequences of eai nquake. It was thus considered necessary that fire insurance policies should provide as a usual term in contract, insurance against fire following an earthquake. Power was taken in. cue bill to approve fire policy condition . and to ensure they were uniform, bat it was not proposed to exercise i power until an agreement had been reached with the insurance companies as to the rates and conditions. It might be some months before final ty was reached.

LABOUR PROTESTS. Mr. Savage quoted from the Plivy Council decision in Hawke s Bay earthquake compensation cases, ano. said the provisions in the . existing New Zealand law were identical with those of the English law. If a er were injured in Britain, the English act would cover him, but New Zealand was to lead the way in a new principle and was not going to folio» Britain. Insurance companies accepted risks on propertie.s, but in case of a man being injured as the result of an earthquake, the Minister wanted o know who was going to accept the iesponsibility. The Minister had contended it was impossible to ailive at a premium that would cover the risk. "We can arrive at the premium to cover a building” said Mr, Savage, "but not. to insure (he individual wh happens to be in it.” Mr. Savage said that in the long run the people of New Zealand had to take the risk even if it meant by taking up collections. The question was whether the people should take risk in organised orthodox methods of insurance. T ie bill was going to destroy that cover, and he hoped the House would not allow it. Mr. Savage said that another clause in the bill sought to validate the illegal pension reductions too soon. Probably this had not been validated before because the Government had had only a slender majority when the pensions were originally reduced. The people who were to be affected by the provisions relating to irrigation were surely entitled to have the opportunity of stating their case, but

no such opportunity had been given them. Mr. Savage strongly protested against so many important items being introduced- in one bill at such a late stage of the session. Mr. Lee moved the following amendment: —“This House declines to give a second reading to the bill which while proposing to legalise irregular and illegal reductions of . widows’ old age, miners’ and soldiers’ . economic pensions, and while proposing to destroy the important legal rights of wage earners, under the Workers* Compensation Act, makes no provision for improving the position of unemployed workers and their dependents, or for reducing in any way the prevalent destitution and distress.” Mr. Lee said that no measure placed before Parliament had caused him the same indignation as the present bill. While the Government could do nothing to help the unemployed, pensioners, and sweated girl labour, individuals known to be substantial contributors to Party Funds, were able to obtain what they wanted. No one poured so much money into political coffers as did the insurance compan-. ies. Mr. Coates: Nonsense.

Mr. Lee: The Government yielded to those who control the insurance companies, and to the newspapers. The Minister knows these organisations are the main contributors to party funds. Mr. Coates: That is utterly incorrect. Mr. Forbes (to Mr. Lee): I deny that. Mr. Coates (to Mr. Lee): You are irresponsible. Mr. Lee claimed that the South British Company had asked for the legislation and Sir George Eliott had asked for it. Mr. Coates: No; and there were no representations from the South British Company. Mr. Lee: Probably one individual company made representations for the lot. The resolutions were carried by the companies and does the Minister suggest that they went nowhere? Mr. Coates: They might have gone to the Minister in charge of the Insurance Department. Mr. Lee: That’s the same thing. They went to the Government. The debate was proceeding when the House adjourned at 1 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m. The Local Legislation Bill was reported from the Lands Committee without amendment. Reporting on the Rating Amendment Bill, the Native Affairs Committee recommended that in order that those interested might have the opportunity of giving evidence on the subject, the Bill should not be allowed to proceed this session. The Native Purposes Bill was reported from the Native Affairs Committee with amendments. MR FORBES’-REPLY. The debate on the second reading of the Financial Bill (number two) was continued.

Mr Forbes said the insurance companies had not made representations to him in respect of the workers’ com; pensation position, but the manager of the State Fire Insurance Office hud told him that the companies could not carry on in view of the Privy Council’s decision. Referring to the complaints about pensions, Mr Forbes said it had been the intention of the Government that all reductions should have taken place bn April 1, 1932, and the position that had arisen had been due to a law draftsman’s error. The debate was continued mainly by Labour members, who criticised the Bill in terms of Mr Lee’s amendment. Mrs McCombs expressed the opinion that members of the House of Representatives were not in a fit condition to give adequate consideration to important legislation, being brought down by the Government in the dying hours of the session, because they were so worn out that they were unable to keep themselves awake. The House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. On resuming, on the motion of Mr Barnard, the House disagreed with the amendment made by the Legislative Council in the Napier Harbour Board Loan Bill, and a committee of managers was set up to prepare reasons for doing so. The' Mortgagors and Tenants’ Relief Bill was reported from the Statutes Revision Committee with amendments. The principal alteration relates to the pooling system in connection with stock mortgage. The original proposal was to give power to the Courts to bind stock mortgagees, and the Bill itself provided for a scheme of distribution of proceeds from . farming operations. For this provision, there has been substituted authority for the Courts to bind stock mortgagees not entering into voluntary arrangements with mortgagors. The Courts may then make an order along the lines considered equitable, and they are given as guides, four voluntary pooling schemes that are already in operation. The schemes outlined are (1) Between stock mortgagees and Public Trust, (2) between stock mortgagees and State Advances Department, (3) between stock mortgagees and Lands Department, (4) between stock mortgagees and banks. The clause authorising abolition of the personal covenant in mortgages on property owned by religious, charitable or educational bodies has been removed. Other amendments are largely machinery in nature designed to insure the more effective operation of the legislation.

NATIONAL EXCHANGES. The debate on Finance Bill number two was continued. Mr Smith urged the Government to delete the elapse of the bill which makes it necessary for a fee of 10/6 to be paid in the case of all appeals to the Government appeal boards, the fee being refunded if the appeal is successful. He said that this would amount to severe hardship to a man who was in the unfortunate position of having to make an appeal, and he urged the Minister to drop the clause. Mr Samuel: He’ll drop it' all right. Mr Parry: This is a “ready.” Mr McKeen said it. was obvious that Mr Smith’s request, was a piece of propaganda and that when the committee stage was reached, the Minister would announce that in response to representations from certain Government members it had been decided to drop the clause. Mr McKeen continued to criticise Mr Smith, who interjected: “Anyhow I am a good New Zealander.” Mr McKeen: I suppose the inference is that I am not a New Zealander. Well, I am not. I am a Scotsman. I would rather be born a man in Scotland than a fool in New Zealand and an ass. The Speaker (Sir C. Statham) instructed Mr McKeen to resume his seat, and asked whether he had applied those terms to a member of the House.

„ Mr McKeen: I did. The Speaker: Well you must withdraw and express regret immediately. Mr McKeen: I am prepared to withdraw.

The Speaker: And to express regret? Mr McKeen: Yes.

Rising to a point of order, Mr Lee said there was no doubt it had been in Mr Smith’s mind that to be born other than a New Zealander was to be something offensive. Was Mr Smith entitled to infer Mr McKeen was something offensive because he was a Scotsman? Mr Smith: No, no.

The Speaker: I need hardly ask Mr Smith for an assurance on the point, but I shall do so. Mr Smith: I meant nothing offensive. I am of Scotch descent, and I am proud of it.

When the debate was resumed Mr Samuel said he intended to vote for the second reading of the Bill because it contained soma clauses he strongly supported, but he would oppose other clauses when the committee stage was reached. Referring to the pensions, he said Mi- Forbes had admitted there had been a mistake. Mr Samuel expressed the opinion that the Government should be prepared to pay for the mistake for which it was responsible. On a division being taken at nine o’clock, Mr Lee’s amendment was defeated by 42 to 24. The Bill was read a second time and urgency was accorded its passage. The Committee stage commenced at midnight. “QUAKE” COMPROMISE. , WELLINGTON, December 20. Replying to the second-reading debate of the Finance Bill, Mr. Coates announced that the Government decided to modify the provision for the limitation of the liability of employers for payment of workers’ compensation for accidents due to earthquakes, by introducing an amendment setting out that in the case of one disaster, or a series of disasters occurring within seven days, the insurance companies, and those they indemnify, will not be liable for more than £50,000. Mr. Coates added that he would, next session, introduce a Workers’ Compensation Amendment Bill, and afford the opportunity for the whole question to be completely thrashed out. He expressed the opinion that the insurance companies had met the Government in the matter very well. TOTE TAX DEDUCTION. Opposition to the clause of the Finance Bill (No. 2), renewing the authority for racing clubs to deduct 10 per cent, of the totalisator jiuty, was raised during the Committee stage of the bill. Mr. Fraser said surely if the Government could rebate money to wealthy racing clubs, it could find the amount necessary to reimburse pensioners from the sums illegally deducted from them.

Other Labour members supported :his view.

Mr. Cobbe said he understood that the racing clubs were having a very hard time, and if they were not given a certain amount of assistance, the Government would lose considerable revenue. He pointed out that the totalisator contributed £160,000 yearly to the State’s revenue, and in racing brought business to railways. Mr. Wright divided the House on the clause, which was retained by 40 to 17. Two Labour members, Messrs Webb and Jones, voted for it. OPPOSITION LEADER’S SALARY. Speaking on the clause granting an additional allowance of £l6O per annum to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Murdoch said he believed the time was not opportune fop extending to any member of Parliament more money than he was now receiving, and there should be no extension until' such time as public servants’ salaries could be increased. He agreed that th© members of Parliament were not receiving a sum commensurate with th© amount of work they had to do, and he also considered the Leader of the Opposition was entitled to a sum sufficient to pay his expenses throughout the year, and he repeated that the time was inopportune.

Mr. Fraser pointed, out that the Leader of the Opposition himseK would not obtain one penny piece of the additional allowance, which, together with the sessional allowance, would cover a portion of the secretarial expenses attached to his onerous duties. Even an ordinary member of Parliament had sufficient correspondence to require the services of a typiste, and the work of the Leader of the Opposition was much heavier than that of the ordinary member. It required secretarial assistance all the year round. Mr. Semple expressed the opinion that the amount provided in the bill was altogether inadequate. “As for the honoraria of members,” he said, “the time will come when members will be courageous enough to tell New Zealand they are underpaid.” Mr. Lye congratulated the Government on what he described as _ long overdue recognition of the legitimate claims of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Parry said he would rather have seen the clause deleted than brought up in the manner in which it had. Mr. Savage: Yes, so would I. . Mr. Coates: We will not take it out. Mr. Coates said that no arrangement had been made with Mr. Savage. The Government had brought, the claiise down because it considered it legitimate and justified, and it intended to, pass it. Mr. Jordan. Then why did the Chief Whip oppose it? Mr. Coates: Please don’t take it that way. I know one member had an individual view, but he did not intend to be personal or nasty. Mr. Murdoch assured the House there had been no spleen in his remarks. The clause was passed amidst a loud chorus of “Ayes." Progress was reported, the House rising at 2.35 a.m., until 10 o’clock this morning. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. WELLINGTON, December 19In the Legislative Council this morning, the following local Bills were read a second time: —Bluff Harbour Board and' Bluff Borough Empowering Dill, Wellington City Empowering and Special Rates Consolidation Amendment Bill, Napier Harbour Board, and . Roman Catholic Archbishop Empowering Bill, Petone and Lower Hutt Gaslighting Amendment Bill, Hawke’s Bay

Rivers Amendment Bill, Whakatane Harbour Board Vesting Bill, and Wellington City Milk Supply Amendment Bill. The Council adjourned at 1.}5 p.m. . 1 , The Legislative Council resumed at 2.30 p.m. The following bills were put through the remaining stages and passed: Bluff Harbour Board and Bluff Borough Council Empowering Bill, Wellington City Empowering and Special Rates Consolidation Amendment Bill, Napier Harbour Board and Roman Catholic Archbishop Empowering Bill (title changed to Napier Harbour Board Empowering Bill), Auckland Suburban Drainage Amendment Bill. Petone and Lower Hutt Gas Lighting Amendment Bill, Hawke's Bay Rivers Amendment Bill, Whakatane Harbour Board Visiting Bill, Wellington City Milk Supply Amendment Bill, and Waimakariri River Improvement Amendment Bill. The Council rose at 3.15 until 8 p.m. The Council resumed at 8 p.m. The Napier Harbour Board Loan Bill was passed with an amendment imposing restriction on the use of unexpended loan money for harbour works until a poll is carried by ratepayers. The Napier Harbour Board and Napier Borough Empowering Bill was put through the remaining stages and passed. The Council rose at 8.50 p.m.