PARLIAMENT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18830, 19 March 1931, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. WELLINGTON, March 18. The Legislative Council met at 2.30 pjn. The Speaker. The Leader of the Council (Sir T. K. Sidey) congratulated Sir Walter Carncross on his reappointment to the Council. Add ress-in-Reply. Resuming the debate on the Address-tn-Reply, Sir F. D. Bell asked the Council not to treat the exigency in the finances of the country as a warlike crisis. They should deal with the position in a businesslike manner instead of making appeal to patriotism and for co-operation. The man who did not agree with the Government’s proposals should not be coerced into voting for them because of such appeals. He did not care whether his views coincided with those of the Party with which he had been associated with in the past. Pyblic servants were a special class of the community, and a very defenceless class. To-day they were being asked to bear one-third of the deficit, and this was opposed to all principles of taxation. It was all very well to talk about, equality of sacrifice, but what justification could there be for such intolerable and unbearable taxation as that. There was no precedent and no economical justification for taxing to such a huge extent a specially limited class, and a specially poor class. It was ridiculous to say that there was no alternative and he suggested that use should be made of the accumulated surpluses of profit of the Post Office. A Lax could also be placed on sugar and tea. He did not believe things were going to be as bad as had been predicted. If he stood alone in the Council, and if it was his last day alive, he would be glad he had stood alone against wicked and unjust taxation.

Sir T. Mitchelson said he agreed that people with salaries under £3OO should not be subjected to tax, although he did net agree with the last speaker. It was up to every member of Parliament to play his part in readjusting the national finances. He criticised expenditure on non-paying railways, and concluded by expressing the opinion that preference to unionists should be abolished. The Hon. D. Buddo said it would be an extraordinary thing if the salaries of public servants were not touched. It was the duty of every man and woman to share in the sacrifice. He thought local bodies might do a lot by practising economy in borrowing. He expressed himself as being against revision of the wheat duties. The Council adjourned at 4.40 p.m.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. Trading Coupons. Replying to Mr H. E. Holland, the Hon. G. W. Forbes stated that legislation dealing with the use of trading coupons would be Introduced this session and treated as a matter of urgency. Rev. Clyde Carr (Timaru) asked whether, in view of the inability of farmers to go on feeding unemployed mendicants, the Government would establish camps throughout New Zealand for those destitute and homeless people. The Hon. G. W. Forbes replied that the matter establishing places for the supply . food was receiving consideration. Niemayer*s Report. Mr J. S. Fletcher asked whether, In view of the “alarming position of the Dominion’s finances,” the Prime Minister would place Sir O. Niemayer’s report and advice before the House. Mr Forbes replied that the report had not yet been received. Telegraph Rates. Mr F. Langstone (Waimarino) asked why the Government was increasing the number of words which could be transmitted as Press messages at » reduced rate; why the weight-limit for weekly papers had been raised; and if there would be a similar easing in regard to wage cuts. He also urged that the public should be given the same concession as newspapers in regard to telegrams. The Hon. J. B. Donald replied that the increased telegraph concessions applied to the session only, and were designed- to give scope for adequate reporting of member’s speeches It had been found that many weeklies were just above the newsweight limit, which would have inflicted an increase of 400 per cent. Press telegram concessions would be of little use to the public, as the minimum rate was Is 6d. Building Regulations. The Rev. C. Carr, asked whether a thorough investigation would be made into all buildings in earthquake areas. Mr Forbes said an expert’s report would be obtained as soon as possible, and legislation would be Introduced this session regarding building regulations. Auckland Unemployment. Mr W. E. Parry askei -%'iether, in view of the number of unemployed in Auckland and the difficulties experienced in absqrbing the men owing to the limitation of the Unemployment Committee’s powers, the Minister of Labour would arrange for the Unemployment Board to provide the payment of the Committee’s expenses, Including the salary of a full-time secretary. The Hon. S. G. Smith, said that he was astonished to learn that the Auckland Committee could not function unless granted such allowances. He pointed out the good work in the direction of absorbing unemployed being carried out there, since during the present w r eek, a total of 4623 men had been employed under No. 5 scheme. Some men received two days, some three days and some four days. There apparently had been no difficulty in other centres. For instance a few days ago advice was received from Dunedin that all eligible men were being placed while in Christchurch there was at present in work 2916 men under No. 5 scheme . Labour members: “Not full time.”

Mr Smith: “Surely you don’t expect the Board to have full time employment for nearly thirty thousand men?” The Minister said that 159 Unemployment Committees had been formed throughout New Zealand, and were operating under the existing rules. If each were allotted expenses it would involve a cost of more than £32,000 out of the Unemployment Fund. He suggested that Auckland local bodies should be asked to contribute pro rata towards the expenses. Mr Smith added that Wellington had absorbed 2000 men under No. 5 scheme, and was arranging to place an additional thousand men. Mortgages Bill. A Mortgagors’ Relief Bill was introduced by Governor-General’s message. The Hon. G. W. Forbes, replying to the Hon. J. G. Coates, said the Bill dealt with the position of mortgagors and mortgagees in regard to calling up mortgages. It gave power to a tribunal to decide whether, in the interests of the country, mortgages should be foreclosed or not. The tribunal, in cases where over £SOO were at issue, would be a Judge, and in cases under £SOO a Magistrate. He did not expect the proceedings to be costly. The tribunal had power to decide in cases before it, and would also deal with the question of what action was advisable in cases of non-payment of interest. The measure was not on the same footing as a rr.crtatorium where the onus was on a mortgagee to approach the Court to have the moratorium lifted. In this case the mortgagor had to approach the Court.

Replying to interjections, Mr Forbes said the measure was not retrospective It would operate by proclamation, and could be similarly repealed when it was considered to have served its purpose. Mr M. J. Savage (Auckland) said the Bill as it stood would make the position worse, and would have the effect of causing immediate foreclosures on the passing of the Act. It would simply stimulate the calling up of mortgages before a proclamation was issued. What was wanted was some provision to protect mortgagors in the meantime. Mr T. W. MacDonald (Masterton), supported this view, and instanced a case in which proceedings in the direction of foreclosure were imminent. Mr W. L. Martin (Raglan) suggested that the measure should be retrospective to the beginning of this year. The Prime Minister had proposed that. icgiuioLL-.r. iq, respect to Hawke’s Bay

mortgagors should be retrospective and Mr Martin considered this benefit might be applied to the whole Dominion. Mr C. H. Chapman (Wellington) endorsed this opinion. Mr W. J. Poison (Stratford) said he hoped the Bill would go no further than postponing interest, and in some cases principal; otherwise farmers would be faced with the practical impossibility of borrowing money on rural security. Mr Forbes replying, said he would see that the points raised by Mr Savage and others was covered in the Bill. In the meantime he could state that any attempt by mortgagees to get ahead of the Act would not be successful. The question whether provision should be retrospective would be considered.

The Bill was read a first time. The debate on the second reading of the Finance Bill was then resumed.