War Damages Bill Gets Second Reading

Northern Advocate, 8 October 1941, Page 4

War Damages Bill Gets Second Reading

TPer Press Association. —Copyright] WELLINGTON, This Day. Moving the second reading of the War Damage Bill in the House of Representatives yesterday, the Minister for Finance (Mr. Nash) said the Bill provided for insurance against war damage on property that could be insured against fire. Mr. H. G. Dickie (Opposition— Patea): Suppose it is not covered at all? Mr. Nash: If it is not covered against fire it may stay out, but if it is covered it must come in. Mr. W. J. Poison (Opposition—Stratford): Suppose a man has a valuable horse that is killed by a bomb. How would he get on? Mr. Nash said there was provision in the Bill for other property to be covered. He added that every class of damage except damage to land and personal injury could be covered, and there might be a Bill later to cover personal injury. Unexpended Money Replying to Mr. W. P. Endean (Opposition— Remuera), who asked if unexpended moneys in the fund would be paid back, Mr. Nash said he thought unexpended money should be used for the rehabilitation of men who served in the war, but others considered that would be an indirect tax on property owners, and it had been decided to use any unexpended funds for repairing earthquake damage or other national disasters. The Minister also stated that insurance companies had said that, as their contribution to the war effort, they would collect money for war damages free of charge. War Damage, War Expense The Leader of the Opposition said he thought the Bill was a timely one. However, he thought, and every member would agree, that war damage was war expense, and, without criticising the Bill, he wondered why that principle had not been followed in the measure, which stipulated that the whole cost of restoring damage through war activity should be recoverable from the pockets of property owners. The cost of war damage, he thought, should be spread over the whole community as far as possible. Offences A remarkable feature of the Bill, said Mr. Holland, was that offences against the Act were to be provided for in regulations. Surely that could not be agreed to. He did not think the Minister should take power to fix punishments. « Mr. Holland also contended the provision that surplus money should be devoted to relief after earthquake damage or other disaster was unjust in regard to the question of “other disaster,” because owners of property had contributed all the money. After the Minister had briefly replied, the Bill was read a second time. The Bill Passed The War Damage Bill, also passed committee, was given its third reading and passed.