A BATTLE ROYAL

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 3 October 1924, Page 5

A BATTLE ROYAL

MORATORIUM EXTENSION BILL. INTERFERENCE BY COUNCIL RESENTED BY “OTHER HOUSE.” (By Telegraph.—Special to Star.) WELLINGTON, Get. a. A hostile reception to the amendments made in the Mortgages l'inal Extension Bill by the Legislative Council shows that a battle-royal between the two Houses is commencing. When the amendments were reported to the House of Representatives to-night the Premier said that some were acceptable, notably the new clause enabling applications in respect to mortgages under £IOOO to be referred by a Judge to a Magistrate. He moved, however, that the House disagree with the Council’s amendment altering the date of notice of extension from March 31, 1925, to December 31, 1924, and limiting the rights of mortgagees to December 31, 1924, when the House of Representatives had decided that there could be no interference till July 31, 1925. Mr. Wilford agreed with the Premier’s motion, declaring that on four occasions by its vote the House had decided on July as the date, but the Council had altered the Bill back to what was the Government’s original opinion. It was a peculiar position that all the representatives of the people could do would be to appoint their managers to confer with the Council’s representatives, but if the latter refused to agree with them noth, ing could be done. Mr. Holland remarked that the issue of dates had been fought in the House against the Government, and he was interested to know if the Government was responsible for the reversion to the original date. Cabinet Ministers voted for the particular date which the Council inserted, and the Bill came back to the House in the shape for which the Government had fought. Mr. Lysnai;: I regret the Premier did not express his opinion on the Council’s action. Mr. Massey: Don’t forget that the standing orders prevent it. (Laughter.) Mr. Lysnar said he also regretted that the Government’s representatives in the Council agreed with its amendments. •“We. must have the Bill and nothing but the Bill we passed,” said the Hon. H. D. Buddo, who demanded that the House stand by its rights. Hon. C. J. Parr suggested that there was no occasion for heat. He hoped to see a friendly conference with the Council’s representatives. “A game of ducks and drakes with representative government,” was the indignant opinion of Mr. Parry. Mr. Young suggested that the Bill was so important that it must not be dropped, as would be its fate if the House quarrelled with the Council and could not secure an agreement. Mr. Masters referred to the Legislative Council as a party machine, but on a point of order raised by the Premier .he was obliged to withdraw the phrase. Another critic of the Council was Mr. Savage, who considered its action showed how far our alleged selfgovernment went when tested out. Although it was obvious that the House would accept the Premier’s motion the discussion was prolonged, and the reason was no secret when a Labour member remarked incidentally that he regretted the prolongation of the debate. The Premier interjected: “It’s the next Bill.” The Premier was referring to the Gaming Amendment Bill, which was next on the order paper, and it could not be taken unless it was reached by 12.30 a..m.