MOTION FAILS

Taranaki Daily News, 20 December 1933, Page 7

MOTION FAILS

FINANCE BILL ATTACKED

LABOUR AMENDMENT LOST

FAR-REACHING MEASURE

MEMBERS' TEMPER FRAYED

WARM PASSAGE IN HOUSE

By Telegraph—Press, Association. , Wellington,. Last Night. Moving the second reading of the Finance Bill' (No. 2) in the House of Representatives to-day the Rt. ..Hon. J. G. Coates, Minister of Finance, said it was a huge document of many clauses,-several of which,' under'strictly correct Parlia-mentary-procedure, should be included in separate Bills. He pointed but’that : the House had . seldom been called upon to pass so many comprehensive measures, such as .the Reserve Bank Bill, Companies ’Bill and the Municipal Corporations Bill, as- it had passed this session. This heavy task had demanded ’ an enormous, amotmt of meticulous care on the part of the Law Drafting Office, and there had thus not been time' to prepare’ in separate Bill form the individual items of the legislation that. it was .necessary to- bring, before Parliament this session. The Minister said the clause' dealing with the exemption of earthquake risks in connection, with workers’ compensation was probably the most important in the Bill. It had been rendered,necessary by a recent Privy'Council decision. The position'Was that the contingent liability was. so immeasurable that insurance companies had stated their inability to undertake it. If private-companies .withdrew from insuring against workers’ compensation claims the whole burden would fall on the State Office, which might be unable to meet the liability. It was useless to expect employers themselves to undertake a risk that was considered beyond the resources of insurance companies. . Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour; Auckland Central): This provision is not'retrospective? Mr. Coates: No; it is not retrospective. The Minister said it had been made clear that if the Privy Council’s. decision was to apply to the future the insurance companies would definitely withdraw from this class of business. IRRIGATION • AGREEMENTS. Referring to clauses regarding payments under irrigation agreements, the Minister said it was intended to amend that so that they would apply only to future finance so far as land was concerned. Those who were financing farmers so far as stock was concerned in the present circumstances getting grazing free. The provisions in the Bill constituted an entirely new procedure, and they, might be dangerous,-but it was the Government’s duty, to take reasonable care that the State’s property was at least preserved. Mr. Coates said that since the Hawke’s Bay disaster the Government had been seriously concerned to find some way of mitigating the financial loss which the severe earthquake entailed without having recourse to public funds - for rehabilitation purposes, as had been necessary in 1931. It had been® established that the greatest damage to property was from fire following the earthquake, but in common with the practice in other parts of the Empire; New Zealand fire insur-' ance policies did not ordinarily provide against loss by fire following earthquake. If such protection were required, it was necessary to contract for it specially and to pay an increased premium, which was relatively high and more than the average insurer could pay. It was also the case that lessons taught by an earthquake disaster were soon forgotten by the community in general, and property, owners were inclined with the return to normal to dispense with the special insurance against the consequences of earthquake. It was thus considered necessary that fire insurance policies should provide as . a usual term in the contract* insurance against fire following earthquake. FIRE POLICY CONDITIONS. Power was taken in the. Bill to approve of fire policy conditions and to ensure that they were uniform, but it was not proposed to exercise the power until an agreement had been reached with insurance companies as to the rates and conditions. It might be some months before finality was reached.

Mr, M. J. Savage (Leader of the Opposition) 'quoted from the Privy Council decision in the Hawke’s Bay earthquake compensation case's, and said the provisions in the existing New Zealand laW were identical with those of the English law. If a worker were injured in Britain the English Act would cover him, but New Zealand was to lead the way in a new principle and was not going to follow Britain., Insurance companies accepted risks on properties, but in the case "of a man being injured as the result of an earthquake the Minister. wanted to know who was going to accept the responsibility. The Minister had contended it was impossible to arrive at a pre-, mium that would cover the risk. "We can arrive at a premium to cover a building,” said Mr. Savage, “but not to insure an individual who happens to be in it.” . Mr. Savage said that in the long run the people of New Zealand had to take the risk, even if it meant taking up The question was whether the people should take the risk in organised, orthodox methods of insurance. The Bill was going to destroy that cover, -and he hoped the House would not allow it. Mr. Savage said another clause in the Bill sought to validate an illegal act of &e Government in imposing pensions reductions too soon. Probably this had not been validated before because the Government had had only a slender majority when the pensions were originally reduced. LABOUR AMENDMENT. The people who were to be affected by the provisions relating to irrigation were surely entitled to have the opportunity to state their case, but' no such opportunity had been given them. Mr. Savage strongly protested against so many important items being introduced in one Bill at such a late stage of the session. Mr. J. A. Lee (Lab., Grey Lynn) moved the folowing amendment: “This House declines to give the- second reading to the Bill, which, while proposing to legalist irregular and illegal reductions of widows, old-age, miners’ and soldiers’ economic pensions, and while proposing to destroy important legal rights of wage earners under the Workers’ Compensation Act, makes no provision for improving the position of unemployed workers and their dependents or for reducing in any way the prevalent destitution and distress.”

Mr. Lee said that no measure placed before Parliament had caused him the same indignation as the present Bill. While the Government could, do nothing to help’ unemployed pensioners and sweated girl labour, individuals known to be substantial contributors to the party funds were able to obtain what they

wanted. No . one . poured ;so much money into the political coffers/ as did the insurarice companies, . '

Mr., Coates: Nonsense! ' Mr.' Lee: The Government yielded to those who control. the insurance companies and to the newspapers. The Minister knows these organisations' are the main contributors to the party funds. Mr. Coates: That is utterly incorrect. Mr. Forbes (to Mr. Lee): I deny that. Mr. Coates (to Mr. Lee): You are .irresponsible.. Mr. Lee claimed that the South British Company had asked for the legislation and that Sir George Eliot had’ asked for it. ... • Mr. Coates: No; and there were no representations from the South British Company. Mr. Lee: Probably one individual company made representations for the lot. Resolutions were carried by the companies, and does the Minister suggest that they went nowhere? Mr. Coates: They might have gone to the Minister in charge of the Insurance Department. ■■ • ■■-'. ■ ■'■ Mr. Lee: That’s the same thing. They went to the Government. REPLY OF MR. FORBES. Mr. Forbes said the insurance companies had . not made representations to him with respect to the. workers’ compensation position, but the manager of the State Fire Insurance Office had told him that the companies could, not carry on in view of the Privy Courtgil’s decision. ™ ' Referring to complaints about pensions, Mr;. Forbes said it had been the intention of the Government that all, reductions should take place on April 1, 1932, and the position that had arised had been due to a law draftsman’s error. The ’debate was continued mainly by Labour members, who criticised the Bill in the terms of Mr. Lee’s amendment. Mrs; McCombs expressed the opinion .that -the -members were riot in a fit condition to give adequate consideration to the important legislation, .being brought down by the Government in the dying hours of the session because they were so worn out that they were unable to keep themselves awake. Mr. S. G. Smith (Co,, New Plymouth) urged the Government to delete the clause in the Bill which makes'it necessary for a fee of' 10s 6d to be paid in the case of all appeals to. Government appeal boards, the fee being Refunded if the appeal is successful. He said this would amount to a severe hardship to a man who was in the unfortunate position of having to make an appeal, and he. urged the Minister to drop the clause. WARM EXCHANGE Mr. A. M. Samuel: He will drop it all right. . . Mr. W. E. Parry: This is a “ready!” Mr. R. McKeen (Lab., Wellington South) said it was obvious Mr. Smith’s request was a piece of propaganda and that when the committee stage was reached the Minister would announce that in response to representations from certain Government members it had been decided to drop the clause. Mr. McKeen continued to criticise Mr. Smith, who interjected: “Anyhow, I am a good New Zealander.”

Mr. McKeeh: I suppose the inference is that I am not a New, Zealander. Well, I am not I am a Scotsman.. I would rather be bom a man .in Scotland than a fool in New Zealand and an ass. Mr. Speaker instructed Mr. McKeen to resume his seat and asked whether he had applied those terms to a member of the House. Mr. McKeen: I did. Mr. Speaker: Well you must withdraw and express regret immediately, Mr. McKeen: I am prepared to withdraw. , Mr. Speaker: And to express regret. Mr. McKeen: -Yes. Rising to a point of order Mr. Lee said there was no doubt it had been in Mr. Smith’s mind that to be bom' other than a New Zealander was to be some-: thing offensive. Was Mr. Smith entitled to infer Mr. McKeen was something offensive because he was a Scotsman? , Mr. Smith: No, no. . Mr. Speaker: I need hardly ask Mr. Smith for an assurance on the point, but I shall do so. Mr. Smith: I meant nothing' offensive. I am of Scotch descent and I am proud of it. When the debate was resumed Mr. Samuel said he intended to vote for the second reading of the Bill because it contained some clauses he strongly supported, but he would oppose other clauses when the committee stage was reached. Referring to pensions he said Mr. Forbes had admitted there had been a mistake. Mr. Samuel expressed the opinion that the Government should be prepared to pay for a mistake for which it was responsible.

On a division being taken at 9 o’clock Mr! Lee’s amendment was defeated by 42 votes to 24. The Bill was read a second time and urgency was accorded its passage. The committee stage was commenced at midnight. ■ Mr. Coates announced that the Government had decided to modify the provision for the limitation of the liability of employers for the payment of workers’ compensation for accidents due to earthquakes by introducing an amendment setting out that in the case of one disaster or a series of disasters occurring within seven days the insurance companies and those they indemnified would not be liable for more than a total of £50,000. Mr. Coates added that he would next session introduce a Workers’ Compensation Amendment Bill and afford an opportunity for the whole question to be completely thrashed out. He expressed the opinion that the insurance companies had met the Government in the matter very well.