AMENDMENT DEFEATED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22045, 27 February 1935, Page 13

AMENDMENT DEFEATED

CHANGING NAME OF BILL RULING BY CHAIRMAN MOTION BY MR. VEITCH FAILS [BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON, Tuesday Objections to the Mortgage Corporation Bill took a practical form for the first time in the House of Representatives to-night, when two amendments were moved against the measure by Mr. W. A. Yeitch (Independent— Wanganui), when its short title was under discussion in committee. Mr. Veitch's first amendment sought to postpone the coming into force of the legislation from April 1 to September 1. He said his object was not to attempt to "kill" the bill by moving that the second reading be taken six months hence. He suggested the September date because if the Government survived this session Parliament would again be in session then and in the meantime consideration could be given to the measure by the press, Parliament, farmers' organisations and others interested.

The Minister of Justice, Hon. J. G. Cobbe: That means postponing relief for the farmer.

Mr. Veitch expressed the view that an attempt was being made to rush the bill through the House in a panicky way. A measure of a much less iconoclastic nature —an amendment of the existing law —would meet the situation.

A little later Mr. Yeitch was given permission to withdraw his amendment. The next speaker, Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour —Christchurch East), said the postponing of the date of operation of the legislation would not make much difference. The question was whether the bill should come into operation. He thought it would be better to have moved that further consideration of the bill should be postponed until the House had seen the related bill. "Personally," he added, "J want to see the horse this one is bracketed with."

Speaking later, Mr. Yeitch said he had made a technical error in the amendment he had previously moved. He then moved an amendment seeking to change the name of the measure to the State Advances Amendment Bill. He considered public interest would be met by changing the title of the bill, and it would be competent for the House to alter clauses in the measure so as to confine their applications to the State Advances Office. _ * "We have reached a stage," said Mr. Yeitc-h, "at which the Minister comes along with a huge reorganisation scheme, the party whip is cracked, and it is demanded that members shall vote for the proposal because they were supporters of the party at last election." The Chairman of Committees refused to accept the amendment, which, in his opinion, was quite foreign to the bill. He suggested that if Mr. Yeitch wanted to show his dissent to the bill, he should move to report progress, stating his reasons.

Several members debated the correctness of the chairman's ruling, and eventually Mr. Yeitch moved that the Speaker's ruling on the chairman's decision should be obtained. The motion was defeated by 37 votes to 26. Immediately afterwards the division on the short title was taken, the clause being retained by 38 votes to 25. COUNTY ELECTIONS RATEPAYERS IN ARREARS QUESTION OF VOTING [BY TELEGRAPH SPECIAL BEPOBTEBj WELLINGTON. Tuesday ' A suggestion that the Government should introduce, if necessary, legislation making provision for ratepayers who are not more than two years in arrears with payment of their rates to vote at the forthcoming county elections was contained in a question which Mr. A. Stuart (Government —RangitikeiV asked' the Minister of Internal Affairs, Sir Alexander Young, in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr. Stuart pointed out that similar action was taken by the Government at the last county elections. The Minister explained that the action taken in 1932 was at the express wish of the Counties Association and other local authorities. No request had been received from the association for the re-enactment of the provision. He would, however, have the matter considered by the Government.