PARLIAMENT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2837, 31 July 1916, Page 9

PARLIAMENT

SATURDAY'S SITTING

WAR LEGISLATION BILL LOCAL ELECTIONS. THE RENTS QUESTION , The House met at 2.30 p.m. on Saturday. ' . Mr. C. A. WILKINSON (Egmont) gave notice to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government would jmiike- «<n. announcement to the House before the end of-the session concerning the making of an appointment to the office of Bigk Commissioner.- • . THE WASHING-UP BILL, -i Mr. D. H. GUTHRIE brought up 'the report of the Lauds Committee on the -Washing-up Bill. The committee recommended that the Bill. as amended to allowed to proceed. It was stated that Clauses 41 and 49 would be referred to the Native Affairs Committee. % The-Eight Hon. W. F. MASSEY said that several contentious clauses liad teen held over, and .would be further consid-. ered by the Lands Committee. In the matter of one clause at. least it would be necessary to take evidence.- He hoped that this. evidence would be forthcoming on Monday. In the meantime .the Bill would go on to the Order Paper. .

WAR LEGISLATION SOLDIERS' FINANCIAL BURDENS PLEA FOR RELIEF ■The House went into Committee oil the War Legislation Amendment Bill. Consideration of that oart of the Bill dealing with restriction of rents was postponed. ■'.• On the part dealing with the settlement of soldiers on the land, Mr. G. AVittr asked that, the Govern- :■■ ment. should take such steps as were possible .to enable men with mortgages to render military service. , Mr. G. Forbes endorsed the request, and said that under -the Military Service 'Act such men might.- be called on for service and yet I heir "iymncinl condition be such that such service could only be - rendered at heavy cost. In England aid was given to men with financial obligations. . ' Mr. W. H. Field approved of the idea, but pointed out that there were mnny - difficulties in the war. It was true that the moratorium applied, ,but. many n-en were not covered under, that pr6vision. • Aid niight b» given by the Government .in the administration of some businesses. Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh instanced what was being doiio in England, and urged that that example should be followed -ber<\ . T " • .The Prime-Minister said that Hie mnttnv wa= a most difficult one to deal'with. TTc d'd not believe that'the public, of New Zealand would ever- allow the'hnme _O f a hp c '>ld po. But no place : the matter in the Statute Book would be a-kin"- the Government to do what was achwllv impossible in the circumstances..' Mr. Forbes noint»d but that in England boards were set up and grants T»nde of'np to i!10-i' to assist men in connection '.with their homes and morlirasres. All that we wire doing was to postpone th». payment of, rents except' in fie cn.se of Crnwn Tenants.- "Were-they relieved alto- , gpther? , ' My. Ma=sev: T<s. in =on)p' cp^ps.. Mr. Forbes-fii'd that in all other cases the debt sinvnlv mounted up. and when I the man returned he would have to set to work to'wipe it off. ' Some of tßfi Difficulties. The Right- Hon. W. P.' Massey said that tho/hon. member had omitted to ■state that th«'British soldier was paid .about' 7s. -a week,, and the New Zealand soldier ' was paid 355. a week. It would bo quito impossible for tho British soldier to keen up any interest payments out of his pay. That,-did not apply always'to the New Zealand soldier. If it were provided that the Government must come to the assist.ance of soldiers in respect of their mortgages, an 'unscrupulous mortgagee,' who perhaps would -not' care, to /sell up or foreclose upon the family of a soldier, would probably threaten'with the object of getting the Government to take over tho mortgage. The Government had • ' power now to deal with cases of hardshin, and every case of. hardship coming under the notice of the -Government would-be inouircd into and dealt with.

Mr; D. Buiek said he.hoped the Government would extend the benefits of the Act to the men who bad borrowed money privately, or who had leased land from wivato owners. Many men were held back from going to the war 'because of their obligations in rent.and interest. Mr. W. ,T. Jennings said he was satisfied about the Prime.Minister's good intentions, but he was not so sure that the. Land' Boards would show symnathy to the men who had/gone to the front. He cited cases of hardship that had occurred, and he asked the Prime Minister to have full inquiries made into all cases arising.' ; The Prime Minister said that he did not wish to interfere "with the Administration of Land Boards, but he could give an assurance that no man would bo disnossessed of ;his holding bv harsh administration of any Land Board. If a man having heavy"financial obligations was called upon to serve, his financial obligations would be a ground of appeal. If his appeal was not sustained, then he (Mr. Massey) thought-it would be the duty of the State to come' to his assistance. In saying this he- spoke with a full realisation of .his responsibilities. Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh asked the Prims Mmiter to put in tho Bill a clause empowering the Government to make regulations to deal, in tho widest possible way with rent, mortgages, interest, and agreements for sale. Mr. Massey said that he could not possibly put such a clause-'into tho Bill-off-hand. He would have to consult his colleagues about it,, and this he promised to do. \ Local Elections. • • ■ ' Progress was made until Clause IC, proposing tho postponement of the elections of.members of- local>bodies , was reached. This clause" nut with somo opposition. ... Tho Hon. G. W. Russell said that local elections had been postponed in England up till July 29, and' that a further extension would shortly be proposed by tho Imperial Government.. It was apparent that thoso people who wore opposing the clause were anxious that the local elections should be fought on certain war issues. In his opinion it was very undesirable that this should, Jie done. He .was prepared to take the verdict of the House on the clause. Mr. R. M'Calluni Eaid he was opposed to the clause, and would vote against it. He moved an amendment to proviso that it should bo loft to the option • of local authorities as to whether tho election should be held or not. Even if this amendment were carried, however, ho would vote against tho whole clause, but. ho considered the amendment would make the clause less objectionable. The Prime Minister said he could not accept the amendment. Ho thought it would be better to postpone all elections or allow them to go on as usual. Ho would be quite prepared to abide-bv tho decision of the House, and lie would not ask any member to support Ilia clause, which was not a policy miostion in the ordinary sense of the term. Mr. G. V. Pearce said he honed the amendment would bo withdrawn. The effect of it would be the exact opposite of what was desired. • An unpopular local body would decide that no election should bo held, and a popular local body that was sure to be returned would decide to have an election. He would opposo both the amendment and the whole clause. Mr. G. Witty said that Parliament had no right to postpone anv election-;. the amendment .was defeated on the Toices. Mr. G. V. Pearce said he hoped the House would throw out-the clauFe. If tho war continued, the life of Parliament would probably have to bo ex-

tended. This»was quite right, because Parliament was, dealing with the war. The local bodies weiji not, and thero was no good reason why the elections should not proceod as usual. There might bo friction in some of the larger cities, but he did not think it would be serious. Mr. A. H. Hiudmarsh said the Hon. G. W. Russell had urged this clause on the ground that England had done it. Ho would be inclined to take notico of that if .they followed the lead of England iu all things. If the Minister would undertake to follow, the example of England in regard to rent, ho would be prepared to follow the example of England in Tcgard to local elections. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson opposed the clause. He know of local bodies where changes were eminently desirable. He thought it would do a lot of good in many instances if the elections were held. Mr. P. C. Webb said the people should have tlio right to change their local bodies if they were not satisfied with them. Clause Rejected. The Hon. W. P. Massey said there had been . suggestions of keeping the discussion going, till midnight. Mr, Welib: No intention. Mr. Massey: Well, I hope not, because, to speak in the vernacular, if there is anything to get my back'up and induco ino to put the clause through that will be it. I realise there is strong opposition to the clause, and I do not blame members for it. lam prepared to tnke the opinion of the. House' on the voices. I think that is fair enough. (Hear, hear.) The clause was lost on the voices. Apprentices. ■ The next four clauses were nut through expeditiously. On clause 21 (Master arid Apprentice), ' ■ . ,' Mr. W. A.'. Veitpli urged that an apprentice, whether he had joined the forces with his employer's consent or not, should have,a right at law to continue his apprenticeship on his return.. It was desirable' that the Prime Minister should go a good deal further than the clause went. ... ■' The Hon. W- IT. Berries said the clause seemed sufficiently wide. lie did not think it wise to force an employer or a Government Department to take back'an. apprentice who had deliberately left bin' employment against his orders. Mr. R. A. Wright urged that some pro, vision should be made to see that an apprentice who enlisted should have an op. portunity to complete his apprenticeship when ho came back. It would be a dread, ful thing, if, because a* boy obeyed a patriotic impulse, he should not be permitted to complete his time. The Hon. W. F. Massey said the difSU culty raised by Mr. Wright could be met by regulation. He did not think it would lie satisfactory to force an employer to take back any apprentice. This would not be in the interest of the apprentice.

'Replying, to Mr. Veitcli, Sir. Masse? said ho had no objection to.making provision against any employer J)eing proceeded against for any technical breach of the law through taking back an apprentice . • The clause was agreed., to. Restriction of Rents. The remaining clauses of 'the Bill hav. ing been dealt with, the Committee pro. ceeded to consideration of the clause dealing with restriction of rent. The "Prime Minister said he had an amendment which ho would move later to meet possible cases of hardship, in which the rent paid prior to the war was much'below. a fair return on the value of the property. His amendment was that if the "standard rent" was less than 8' per cent, of' the capital • value, tho "standard rent" should bo deemed to bo an amount en.ua! to 8 per .cent, of the capital value. Mr. A: H. Hindmarsh said ho hoped tho Prime Minister would not press 'his amendment. It would destroy tho Bill, and would lead, to a great deal of litigation. The rents paid on August 4, 1914, were fair rents, and the Bill had given general satisfaction. Only a few landlords in Wellington took exception to it. He asked tho Prime Minister to accept an amemlment to give tho tenant tile right to revert" to the rent paid when ho first took- the house, even if he took it subsequent to August 4, 1914. A tenant, might, hove greiit difficulty in discovering what rent was paid prior to August 4, 1914.. ■ Mr: Pi.'A. AVright said that 8 per cent, was not an unreasonable rate of return. jlo did not beliovo there was.a tenant in Wellington who was paying rent at tho rato of less than 8 per cent. ■ They all paid more. ' Mr. J. M'Combs pointed out that land-' lords could get over the restriction by putting very little furniture into the House and letting it as a furnished house. This would be an open door to evasion. He pointed out also that the assessment of 8 per cent, on capital value would not work out equitably. Some very old houses weTo standing on very valuable sections. A charge o£ 8 per-cent, oh the capital value on those properties would make the rent much higher than would be a fair rent. The Bight Hon. W. P. Massej\said he had endeavoured to bo fair to both parties. He had no time for the landlord who charged extortionate rents. That man was not worth; considering. But ho. did wish to »fc fair to the men who charged fair and reasonable rents. "Mr. H. G. Ell said he thought tho Bill as drafted would have worked well, and he would advise Mr. llaisey to drop the 8 per cent, clause, which would mean a lot of litigation and costly procedure. Mr. Massey: We don't, want to stop building. That was the effect of the Now South Wales Bill.

Mr. Ell said he would not object to the 8 per ceut..assessment on new lionet!-. Then there would be no stoppage of building..' ', Progress was reported at 11.55 p.m. Clause 2 of the Bill was passed, and theamendment providing for the assessment on the 8 per cent, basis was not reached. The Housd rose until this evening, at 7.30.. ■ \ ' ■