PARLIAMENT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 307, 25 November 1932, Page 3

PARLIAMENT

ANOMALIES RECTIFIED. ADJUSTMENTS TO MAIN ACT. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON,, Nov. 24. In the House of Representatives today, in moving the second reading of the National Expenditure Adjustment Amendment Bill, lit. Hon. G. W. Forbes outlined the clauses of the Bill, stating that they were designed to clear up points raised after the passage of the main Act. There had been some doubt as to whether loans on life insurance policies came under the category of an ordinary mortgage or whether they should be classed as chattel securities and thus be subject to the minimum interest rate of 6i per cent. The Bill clearly placed them under the definition of an ordinary mortgage subject to 5 per cent, minimum interest rate. The exemption was being lifted from local body ground rents in order to bring them into line with the general policy of reducing fixed charges. There was no reason why local bodies should not be subject to the same provisions as private institutions and individuals. The Bill was read the second time. RELIEF FOR MORTGAGORS. In moving the second reading of the Mortgagors’ and Tenants’ Further Relief Bill, Hon. J. G. Cobbe said that the measure contained nothing that would inflict a hardship on anyone. It was right that mortgagors who had a prospect of being able to carry on should be given every possible assistance to do so. Mr W. E. Barnard said that the Government should have realised by this time that continuous arbitrary interference of this kind must inflict hardship on a not inconsiderable number of popple. He recognised that in some cases the mortgagors could be hard and arbitrary, but in endeavouring to assist mortgagors the position had been created in which one's sympathy had to be extended to mortgagees. Continuing, Mr Barnard said that if any pressure was brought to bear on the Minister to alter the law relating to the personal covenant he hoped the matter would be referred to the Statutes Revision Committee because only lawyers could, thoroughly appreciate the difficulties involved. Mr A. D. McLeod said that it was neither the time nor the place to discuss the more comprehensive measures urgently necessary to afford relief to the farming community, but he welcomed the Bill before the House even though it was only a. palliative. Hon./ J. G. Cobbe, replying to the debate, paid a tribute to the manner in which stock and station agents had met the needs of their ■ customers. The Bill was read the second time. LOCAL BODY GOVERNMENT.

The Municipal Association Bill was also lead the second time. Hon. A. Hamilton outlined the more important clauses in moving the second reading of the Municipal . Corporations Bill. Mr M. J. Savage raised an objection to the clause giving councils power to strike non-voting electors off r.lio rolls. He advocated a system of compulsory enrolment. Referring to the clause giving power to fill extraordinary vacancies in councils, Mr Savage expressed the opinion that provision should be made lor the ap-i pointment of the next on the list at the general election. He said that in this way a council would be going as far as possible towards fulfilling the wish of the . electors. He regretted the introduction into municipal politics of the “bad practice oi extending the life of governing bodies.” He said this might be useful in times of political storms but it was moving councils further away from the eleeMr A. M. Samuel and Mr C. H. Clinkard stressed the necessity for the opportunity l>eing given local bodies to study the legislation, and welcomed the Minister’s assurance that ample time would be allowed for this purpose before the Committee stage commenced in the House.

Mr J. McCombs protested against the second reading being taken so soon after tire introduction of the Bill. He said that it was not reasonable to ask members to discuss a measure of over 390 clauses and containing at least 20 important alterations to the law at such short notice.

'The Municipal Corporations Bill was read the second time and the House rose at 10.55 till 10.30 to-morrow morning.

SUBSIDY TO KINDERGARTENS. FAVOURABLE RECOMMENDATION. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Nov. 24. The Education Committee, reporting to the House of Representatives to-day on a number of petitions asking for the continuance of the subsidy to free kindergartens, recommended that they should be referred to the Government for favourable consideration as soon as the finances of the country permitted. Mr H. Atmore said that all that was wanted was a zeal for the work of kindergarten institutions. He pointed to the fact that the Roman Catholics who were not a wealthy section of the community had not curtailed their educational facilities. The Government seemed to be devoid of educational ideals. There never had been a greater need for more education than at the present time. Mr E. J; Howard said that the country could not afford to neglect kindergarten training.

Mr D. G. Sullivan, declaring that kindergartens were worthy of every support, said that at the present time these institutions had commitments which they did not know how to meet.

Mr P. Fraser said that the committee’s recommendation seemed to be an attompt to shelve the question. In his opinion the raising dT the school age (which he understood was to be reviewed this year because it had proved unworkable) had made it imperative that kindergarten work should be expanded. Mr H. T. Armstrong moved that the petition be referred back to the committee for further conwderation.

Mr F. Jones urged the Government to make every effort to find at least a portion of the former grant for kindergarten work. Mr W. A. Bodkin (chairman of the committee) replying to the debate, assured the House that the committee lrad no desire that the question should be shelved. The whole matter had been discussed by the committee on strictly non-party. lines. Mr Armstrong’s amendment was defeated by 37 to 21 and the committee’s report adopted.

MEETINGS OF COMMITTEES. DEPLETION OF THE HOUSE FEARED. WELLINGTON, Nov. 25. “Why not adjourn Parliament for the afternoon?” inquired a member facetiously in the House yesterday afternoon when three committees

sought leave to sit during the sitting of the House. No exception was taken to the first request, which was made on behalf of the Superannuation Funds Bill Committee. When similar facilities were sought on behalf of the Industries and Commerce Committee some members registered surprise, but no protest was made. However, when the A and L Petitions Committee also expressed its desire to sit in the afternoon, Mr M. J. Savage, deputy Leader of the Labour Party, rose in his place. “This must have a stopping-place somewhere,” said Mr Savage. “It is obvious that if ail these committees ai e allowed to meet there will not be many members left in this Chamber. while I do not want to raise unnecessary objections, it is quite clear this sort of thing cannot go on indefinitely.” Mr J. A. Nash (chairman of the Superannuation Funds Committee): Some of the committees will not take long. I Tlie Prime Minister, Mr Forbes, j suggested that the Petitions Committee should postpone its meeting until to-morrow. He pointed out, presumably in reference to the Motueka byelection, that some members were absent from Wellington, and that it would be rather awkward if all three committees met, thus further depleting the attendance. Mr E. F. Healy, chairman of the Petitions Committee, said that it w<« desired to hear a witness who had come all the way from Sydney. Mr Speaker said that he would have no alternative but to put the question unless some arrangement were made.

The Prime Minister said that it was difficult to judge the degree of urgency of each committee. The affairs of the country should receive some consideration, however, even if there were a witness from Sydney. Mr A. D. McLeod, chairman of the Industries and Commerce Committee, said that his committee desired to examine a witness from Dunedin and that would take only about ten minutes. He could arrange for the committee to sit at an hour which would not conflict with the meetings of the other two committees. On that understanding the House consented to the Petitions Committee also having leave to sit in the afternoon*