LOANS WITHOUT POLLS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16500, 18 November 1927, Page 7

LOANS WITHOUT POLLS

MUNICIPAL ABATTOIRS : MEETING A DEMAND AMENDING BTLL CRITICISED. (Parliamentary Reporter.) ■WELLINGTON, this day. Municipal power to raise loans without % ratepayers' sanction was a much debated point when the House of Representatives considered in commit tee yesterday an amendment to the Slaughtering and In- \ spection Act in charge of the Minister of Agriculture. It included a clause enabling loans for ahattoir improvement to be raised without taking a poll of ratepayers, a point to which Mr. 0. W. Forbes promptly drew attention. He felt there was a danger in this power. : Mr. H. S. S. Kyle said the question was of importance. In Christchurch there was a freezing works competing with municipal abattoirs, but extra work required that the abattoirs should be extended. . He maintained that the Christchurch City Council should have power to add to the abattoirs and keep theol in an efficient condition. Abattoirs had had to be provided by reason of legislation that had been passed, and it was unreasonable to think that they could not be maintained in a financial position with unrestricted competition from freezing companies. Mr. D. G. Sullivan produced a large bundle of telegrams which he said came from Christchurch butchers asking him to support the Bill as it was urgently required. Extensions were needed, and the City Council was getting an expert's report. This was not a- Christchurch Bill, because municipalities all over New Zealand required the same legislation. The Prime Minister: Why should you duplicate abattoirs? Mr. Sullivan: Because the law compels municipalities to provide them and 1 £40,000 was spent in Christchurch. Mr.' Forbes: Hav e you made a profit? RUN AT A LOSS. Mr. SulliVan replied that the abattoirs were run at a loss, but now had a small credit. Extensions were required, bv the Department af Agriculture as the abattoirs were congested. He assured the Premier that the proposed loan was not to cover any maintenance expenditure. Sir Geo. Hunter said the Dill had a general application, but particularly applied to Christchurt\ He undei stood that the proposal to raise money to nnpiovo the abattoirs had been turned down by the Christchurch ratepayers . Now the Bill would enable a loan to be raised without reference to the ratepayers. He had always contended that unless public health was concerned the ratepayers' approval must be obtained. Mr.'H. E. Holland, Leader of the Opposition, said a city was compelled to establish abattoirs, and when the Health Department insisted that improvements should be made, while the law enabled a loan to be raised to build the abattoirs without consulting its ratepayers, it was obliged to secure their consent to further expenditure required for health reasons. This was an unthinkable position, and he could not understand why any objec tion was taken to the Bill. The Hon. D. Buddo declared that Parliament always set itself up against allowing loans to be raised without the ratepayers' sanction. There were four freezing works in the vicinity, which occounted for the attitude of the Christchurch ratepayers. He was not aware that the health authorities had made any complaints about the Christchurch abattoirs. Mr. Sullivan: They have. • Mr. H. L. Tapley remarked that while he Was a strong advocate for giving ratepayers control over loans he must support the Bill because the interests of public health were involved, and no section of the ratepayers should.be allowed to stand in the way of an improvement in this respect. THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.

Mr. H. T. Armstrong-declared that Auckland once wanted the powers in the Bill more urgently than Christchurch and got a special measure. When the Minister was consulted over the Christchurch situation he said there was a general demand for the power needed by Christchnrch. Consequently he undertook to bring down a general Bill. Mr. Forbes said it, seemed strange to him that Labor members'' who so strongly contended for the rights of the "sovereign people" and that in raising loans they should "trust the people," should now bo ready to disregard the

people's rights-on the question of raising / a loan for these extensions to abattoirs. Mr. 0. Forbes considered that if the people of Christchurch thought the extension unnecessary and the freezing works were willing to do the killing, they should have the right to'say so. The Minister of Agriculture said the question arose as to whether freezing works were not capable of doing all the killing necessary in Christchurch, where the ratepayers had already turned down a proposed loan for abattoir extension. The conditions at the abattoirs, if continued long, would become a menace to the community's health. His own idea was that killing could be done efficiently and cheaply by freezing companies. A poll had been rejected and there was only one course loft, in the circum- / stances, to provide for the loan being raised without reference to the ratepayers. , * . Mr. J. S. Dickson said the rejection ' of the poll in Christchurch was due to an agitation raised by the freezing companies, who, at the time, were not doing very well and wished to get the butchers' killing. The Bill was ultimately reported without amendment and passed.