PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21141, 26 March 1932, Page 11

PARLIAMENT.

MORTGAGORS' BILLAMENDMENTS accepted. CLOSEST OF DIVISIONS. MARGIN of one vote. pw MEMBERS IN HOUSE. fuY TELEGRAPH. —SPECIAL RE rOltTErt."| "WELLINGTON, Thursday. There was a sensational climax to a oav of unusual events in the House of Representatives to-day, when iho Labour [Party forced a division on a point connected with t lie final consideration of j], e Mortgagors and Tenants' Relief Bill, pud the Government escaped defeat by jtb o margin of one vote. Although it. is unlikely that a reverse uroulcl have been interpreted as a vote p{ no-confidence, for the division was forced in peculiar circumstances, the incident came as an unpleasant surprise. Most members had left for their homes fcn the previous evening, just sufficient remaining to receive back from the Legislative Council the anticipated amendments to the Mortgagors and Tenants' Belief Bill. As the. House disagreed with some of the amendments, managers were appointed to confer with managers from fhe Council with a view to reaching a compromise to enable the bill to be passed fcefore the Easter vacation. The House managers were the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, the Minister of public Works, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, pnd Mr. W. E. Barnard, of the Labour party, who was no doubt selected bepause of his legal knowledge. Terms of Compromise Attacked. The Labour Party attacked the terms 6f the compromise reached by the managers, in spite of the fact that Mr. [Barnard was a party to the agreement. A lengthy discussion developed, and members with trains and boats to catch regarded the clock anxiously as the debate showed no signs of languishing. It was just after 7 p.m. that a division on the point in dispute was called for by the Labour Party. There were then 12 Government and 10 Labour members in their places, and a close margin of votes was therefore indicated. Hasty searches were instituted for more Government members, but only one more, [Mr. D. McDougall, could be found. At Jeast one other was locked out, while several more, blissfully ignorant of the situation in the House, were completing their Easter shopping in the city, preparatory to catching the. limited express at 7.15 or the ferry steamer south at 7.45. ,The Government carried the day by 13 votes to 12, the smallest number of votes (Cast in any division for many years. Mr. Barnard's Action. Some comment was subsequently expressed at the action of Mr. Barnard in voting for his party, in spito of the fact that he had agreed 1o the settlement made by the managers. With only a few minutes remaining to train time, north-bound members had to hasten to the Thorndon station, but, fortunately, arrangements had been made to hold back the train for a few minutes to enable members to reach their homes. Prior to this exciting incident the House had spent many weary hours in technical discussion upon amendments to the hill made by the Legislative Council. The. Council sat for nearly five hours to-day, during which time it approved of the amendments to the measure suggested by its Statutes Revision Committee. The House was then left with a series of legislative conundrums. Differing Views. The main bone of contention between the two Chambers was the provision relating to the personal covenant in mortgages. It was the desire of the Legislative Council that the Supremo Court, should be given power only to postpone mortgagees' rights under personal covenant, whereas the House had decided that the Court should be able to deterBirre or cancel these rights. _The bells throughout the building rang frequently during the afternoon and early evening summoning members of each Chamber to consider the different views advanced. It was fully expected by the Prime Minister that final agreement upon the bill would be secured in plenty of time to allow everyone to get away for Easter, but as the day wore on and the tangle of technicalities became even worse, the prospect °f settlement became more •remote. Late in the afternoon, the House met to deal with the bill as amended by the Council. There was immediate disapproval from the Labour benches and to prevent a deadlock three managers were appointed to discuss the points at issue with representatives of the Legislative Council. They were in conference for less than an hour, after which the Prime Minister reported that all difficulties had been cleared away and that there was nothing to prevent the House from letting the measure go through. Objection by Labour. There was a hitch when the Labour Party objected to the Court being deprived of the right of determining the personal covenant, and it refused to give way, in spite of the Prime Minister's assurance that this would not leave mortgagors unprotected. Hie Government was obviously unprepared for any drawn-out debating involving amendments .to the bill, and this Was forcibly illustrated by the introduction of the Governor-General's Message, conveyed by telegram from Nelson in great haste, authorising <tbe various Amendments agreed upon by the managers. There was a flutter of excitement when tlie Labour Parly stood its ground find called for a division on the personal covenant issue. This led to the incident which almost resulted in a reversal for the Government. This brought the dispute to a close. The Legislative Council agreed to the Amendments, and both Houses rose until 'April 5. LOCAL BODY FINANCES. balancing of budgets. SINKING FUND OBLIGATIONS. |"BY TEI.Er.RAPH. —SPECIAL REPORTER.] WELLINO TON. Thursdny. , In a question to the Minister of Finance 5n the House of Representatives, Mr. H. H. Mason (Labour —Auckland Sub*Jrbs) asked whether the Minister bad noticed that the last Budget of the British parliament was reported to have been balanced bv making adjustments in reject to sinking fund payments with great Satisfaction to the financial critics, and whether he would make such provision as ? ou ld enable New Zealand local bodies to ( tliei>- budgets by similar means. Mr. Stewart replied that the British arrangement did not affect contractual •"iking funds, but only free provision or debt redemption over and above any «°ntract. The sinking funds of local °<hes in. New Zealand were generally inyuded i n the contracts under which a Render subscribed to the loan and interference with these contractual liabilities £? a »d only be detrimental to the credit of 6 local bodies concerned.