MEASURES THAT FAILED

Taranaki Daily News, 6 September 1935, Page 7

MEASURES THAT FAILED

BILLS RETURN TO HOUSE DISTRESS AND REPLEVIN AGAIN. REPORTS OF COURT PROCEEDINGS. OLD-AGE PENSIONERS’ RELIEF. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The United Wheatgrowers’ Bill, a private measure, was read a first time in the House of Representatives to-day. Replying to Mr. W. E. Barnard, the Prime Minister said a report had been received from the general manager of the State Fire Insurance Office regarding earthquake insurance, and it was receiving the consideration of the Government. Mr. F. Jones (Lab., Dunedin South) asked the Minister of Employment whether the Government would make provision through the Unemployment Board that where the wife of an old-age pensioner was not entitled > that pension the husband should be entitled to work or sustenance to enable him to maintain his way. ■ The Hon. S. G. Smith in reply said the Unemployment Board had recently made provision in its rules for cases of the kind mentioned. If the applicant on reaching pensionable age were still able io work when employment was available to him, and if in the opinion of the board he was in necessitous circumstances, refief might be granted. Each case was referred specially to the board for consideration on its merits, and when relief was granted its payment was conditional upon the old-age pension being relinquished. Mr. Barnard moved for leave to introduce the Distress and Replevin Amendment Bill. He said the Bill had been introduced a number of times by Mr. P. Fraser. Last session it was taken up by the Government and reported to the House, but there the matter rested. The main object in introducing the Bill was tc ascertain where they stood in connection with that legislation. He hoped the Minister of Justice would give the House some indication whether the Government intended to go on with the matter. EXEMPTIONS PROVIDED. The Bill aimed to provide exemption for the personal and family clothing of the tenant up to £5O in value from being seized. It repealed the proviso that that exemption was available to the tenant only on condition that he gave up possession to the landlord if demanded. The Bill did to some extent meet the position of the relief worker as it was to-day, and did no disservice to the average landlord. The measure was not a complete remedy, but it did remove to some extent the difficulties, hardship and injustice which the unfortunate man, wife and family migh. suffer through failing to pay rent because they had not enough money to do so. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon) urged that before a person could be ejected an order should be secured from a magistrate, who would investigate the position cf the tenant and the landlord. The Hon. J. G. Cobbe said it was not improbable that the previous Bill might be brought down again. He could not say so definitely, but much depended on how the ordinary business proceeded. He introduced the Bill last session and it was referred to a committee. It came back to the House in such a skeleton form that it was of very little use, and he did not think at that of the session there was any use in going on with it.

From correspondence he had received he knew the legal profession was. very much against the Bill being put through. At the same time he thought something should be done to alleviate the position of those cases to which Mr. Barnard had referred.

The Bill was supported by a number of Labour members, who said it was not the Opposition members who chopped the Bill to pieces, and they assured the Minister they would give every facility in putting the measure through the House. The Bill was read a first time. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. Leave to introduce the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill was sought by Mr. Barnard, who said the Bill had been introduced on a number of occasions. It was taken up by the Government, was referred to a committee and was reported back with amendments. Since then nothing had been heard of it, and one wondered vzhat influence there could be that prevented the Bill from going ahead. Here again the sincerity of the Government was called in question. , The Bill would follow very closely the Bill as reported from the Statutes Revision Committee. It dealt with the restriction on the publication of evidence in certain cases such as divorce and destitute persons cases, also the publication of photographs of parties to cases. He again asked the Minister of Justice what the Government intended to do with the Bill. Mr. F. W. Schramm (Lab., Auckland East) paid tribute to the newspapers generally in reporting court cases. Journalism in New Zealand generally was of a high standard, but there were sometimes exceptions. Witnesses and parties to cases should receive protection, and private details and photographs should not be blazoned throughout the country. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Lab., Auckland Suburbs) said the publication of some evidence often meant suffering to innocent persons. The Government, he alleged, deferred to the financial interests of those who made money out of the sufferings of little children. Decent newspapers did not report such evidence, but some others did, and he hoped the Minister would put the Bill on the Statute Book. Mr. Barnard in reply testified to the decency of newspapers in publishing evidence, but said there were exceptions, cr an exception, and he hoped there was nothing in the statement that the Government deferred to a certain weekly newspaper. The Bill was read a first time. Other Bills read a first time were the Wellington City and Suburban Water Supply Amendment Bill (Mr. R. A. Wright), Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill (Mr. R. McKeen), Napier Airport Bill (Mr. Barnard) and the Napier Foreshore Extension Bill (Mr. Barnard).