COMPANIES BILL

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19672, 14 December 1933, Page 3

COMPANIES BILL

DEBATE IN UPPER PASSAGE DELAYED Bv Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON. December 13. Moving the second reading of the Companies Bill in the Legislative Council to-day, the Hon. R. Masters said that the Bill was intended to bring the New Zealand law into harmony with the English legislation. The general effect of the Bill was to give greater protection to shareholders, prospective Shareholders and the creditors of companies. It had been suggested that the Bill contained too many provisions enabling the affairs of companies to be pried into, but the view of the expert committee was that any publicity required under the Bill was necessary in the public interest. The Hon. M. Fagan said that he welcomed the Bill as there was ample evidence in recent years that many companies had been floated which should never have been permitted. There had been so many swindles in the mining industry that it was a wonder any investors were left with confidence in mining ventures. The Hon. R. McCallum said that he had no faith in companies and would not invest money in them. He did not think more than five out of every 100 companies floated paid dividends. By fraud and chicanery people were taken down, and he would have liked to have seen greater restrictions on company promotion and share-hawking than had been imposed in the Bill. Proper Consideration Urged. The Rt. Hon. Sir Frances Bell said that if the Bill, which was of a technical nature, had been carefully drawn up by experts it would be mischievous to interfere with the language in which it was drafted, although it was competent for Parliament to consider whether the language included all the provisions which it was intended should be included. But for an unfortunate action he would have'been content to allow the Bill to pass the Council as a formality. However, on the last day the Bill was before the House sheets of amendments had been introduced without the possibility of due consideration, and he for one would not accept responsibility for the amendments as he had had no opportunity of giving them proper consideration. He would have been happy to accept the original language of the English statute on the subject only to such amendments as the Crown Law Office desired, but he could not accept the responsibility of a Bill into which hod been inserted amendments which had not been given due consideration. The Hon. Sir James Allen said that the Bill should be sent to the Statutes Revision Committee.

The Hon. W. H. Mclntyre contended that share-hawkers should be licensed. Replying to the debate, Mr Masters said that every amendment which had been made to the Bill in the House had first of all been approved by the expert committee. The Government had not accepted any amendments without taking that precaution. However, he had no objection to the Bill going before the Statutes Revision Committee.

The Bill was read a second time and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee, which was instructed to report to-morrow.