BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT

Taranaki Daily News, 28 August 1930, Page 13

BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT

BANK BOARD’S PERSONNEL AMENDING MEASURE DEFEATED. CONTROL OF INSURANCE AGENTS. By Telegraph.—Press AssociationWellington, Last Night. The Life Insurance Agents Bill (Air. C Carr), the Stock Amendment Bill (the Hon. A. J. Murdoch), and the Napier Harbour Board Loans Enabling Bill (Mr. W. E. Barnard) were introduced in the House of Representath es to-day and read a first time. Air? Carr, in introducing the Insurance Agents Bill, said it was designed to protect the public against life insurance agents unworthy of the trust! and the duties with which they were concerned. It was along the lines of similar provisions with respect to land and other agents. The Bill was also intended to protect genuine insurance agents by operating against * those whose character and' ability did not warrant their acting in such a capacity. It would serve to prevent a stigma being cast on the more lionouiable members of the calling. The Magistrate’s Courts Amendment Bill (Mr. 11. G. R. Mason), was read a second time. The Coal Mines Amendment Bill (Air. H. E. Holland) was read a second time pro forma and referred to the Goldfields and Mines Committee. The Hon. W- A. Veitch was appointed to the special unemployment committee in place of the Hon. E. A. Ransom, who as acting-Leader of the House had insufficient time to attend all the meetings of the committee. The Magistrate’s Courts Amendment Bill was put through the committee stage without amendment. The Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (Mr. F. Langstone) was considered in committee. Air. W. D. Stewart said he did not think the House would acquiesce in the restrictions embodied in the Bill. For instance, there w.as a restriction that not only the directors but also shareholders in other concerns should, be debarred from being directors of the bank. Other clauses were too far-reaching. ‘•WIDESPREAD DISSATISFACTION.” Mr. Langstone said there was widespread dissatisfaction with the way in which the bank was being conducted. He believed drastic alterations should be made at a time like the present when finance was of such vital concern. The Hon. E. A. Ransom said the Government was unable to give - its support to the measure. While it was admitted that the directors of the bank should as far as possible be untrammelled by outside interests, unless the men had occupied outside commercial positions it would be difficult to ascertain what were their qualifications for appointment to the board of the bank. It was considered the Government had adequate representation on the directorate. Mr. Veitch said he did not desire to defend the legislation of the past. The Government at one time had owned one-half of the shares in Die bank, but now it owned only one-third. * He believed there was need for consideration of the whole question of currency in New Zealand, but the Bill did not touch the fringe of a problem that was of vital importance in New Zealand and in Australia.

Mr. M. J. Savage said the people of New Zealand would some day insist on tlie banking business being conducted on the same lines as the Post and Telegraph Department. It was a public service. Mr. Langstone’s Bill was the first stop towards that end. . Mr. Langstone said there was no share capital in the savings banks or in the - post offices. It should be possible to obtain men of the necessary experience from these quarters to be appointed to the board of the bank. The Bill- was defeated on a division on the short title by 38 votes to 26. The Magistrates Courts . Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed. R ATI NG AMENDMENT. The interrupted debate on the second reading of the Rating Amendment Bill was resumed. . Mr. Mason, replying, said a recent judgment of the Court of Appeal had largely eliminated the need for the Bill, because the- Court bad held that the section of the original Act which the Bill sought to remove was highly superfluous. The decision of the Court on that point was sufficient. The Bill -was read a second time. Mr. C. E. Macmillan was given leave to withdraw his Coroners Amendment Bill. He stated that he desired to do so because a similar Bill had since been introduced from the Legislative Council. Moving the second reading of the Local Elections and Polls Amendment Bill, Air. Mason said that as he nad already explained, that the Bill gave local bodies the right to choose their own system of voting. Mr. de la Perrelle said it would be a mistake to alter the system, which was giving satisfaction in the majority of eases. He would not like to see the Bill rushed through, and he suggested it should be referred to the Local Bills Committee. Mr. Wright agreed with the suggestion that the Bill should go before the committee. The Hon. A. J. Stallworthy supported the Bill-remarking that the amendment was a very wise one. Mr. Mason, replying, said he did not think anything could be gained by referring the Bill to the committee. The issue was a simple one and did not break any new ground. The Bifl was read a second time. Moving the second reading of the Family Allowances Amendment Bill, Mr. Barnard outlined the measure. He appealed to the Government to take up the Bill. Mr. Cobbe said he was sure practically every member of the House was in sympathy with the Bill, but it would involve the expenditure of between £4OOO and £5OOO a year. He thought it advisable that the whole question of pensions should be dealt with at once. It would not be sound principle to deal with it piecemeal. It was possible the Government might subsequently introduce legislation bearing on the whole subject of pensions. The Prime Minister would be going into the matter at the Imperial Conference. Messrs. J. S. Fletcher, W. E. Parry and J. A. Nash expressed support for the Bill, which was read a second time. The Monse rose at 10.30 p.m.’till 2.30 p.m. to-morrow-