PARLIAMENT AT WORK

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 75, 21 December 1921, Page 6

PARLIAMENT AT WORK

MEAT POOL DISCUSSED '

THE DETAILS OF THE SCHEME

MORATORIUM BILL FURTHER AMENDED

The Legislative Council yesterday passed the Mortgage; and Deposits Extension Bill after further amending the provision for repayment of deposits by instalment. If the total sum does not exceed £l9OO, 5 per.. d cent, is to be paid on April 1, 1922, 5 per cent, on July 1, 1922, and 10 per cent, on October 1, 1922. Where the' s um exceeds £lOOO, four instalments of 5 per cent, each are to bo paid on July 1 and October 1, 1922, and January 1 and April 1, 1923.

The House of Representatives discussed the proposed meat pool in the afternoon and evening. Tho Prime Minister placed the detail; of the scheme before members. The scheme provides for the establishment of a board of control, consisting of representative; of the various interests, with a subsidiary board in London. The board is to control all meat after it enters the freezing works, and to arrange for marketing and for advances to owners.

The Prime Minister stated that negotiations were in progress concerning the financial side of the scheme. Members of the House were not asked to vote on the subject. The debate indicated that they were prepared to support the scheme.

The House passed the Public Holidays Amendment Bill in the evening. This Bill provides for the observance of public holidays on Boxing Day and the Tuesday following. The prohibition member; argued that the Bill permitted licensed premises to be open at times when under existing law they would have been closed.

THE MORATORIUM BILL AMENDED BY COUNCIL repaymenTof deposits As passed by the Legislative Council last night the Mortgages and Deposits Extension Bill contains several amendments. Clause 10. dealing with the service of notice on a mortgagor or a mortgagee in certain cases, has been amended by *n addition of no very vital importance. The other amendments are in part 2 of the Bill which deals with deposits. In the clause prescribing the conditions of extension, words have been inserted 1 to make it plain that the borrower must clear off the interest due up to the time of the commencement of the Act, and then commence the payment of interest at six and a half per cent., or such higher rate as has been contracted for. The provision that the higher rate must bo continued if it was payable at the commencement of the Act is a new one. Sir Francis Bell stated that in cases where a contract for a lower rate existed at the commencement of the Act, the borrower could not take advantage of that contract, but must pay six and a half per cent., as the Government intended that the lender should' receive the extra interest in consideration of the extension. The Council has altered the provisions as to the repayment of deposits by in- ■ stalments. Where the total sum does not exceed =£looo, instalments are to be paid as follow Five per cent, on April 1, 1922; five per cent, on July 1, 1922; and 19 per cent, on October 1. 1:122. Where the sum exceeds £l9OO, four in- . stalments of five per cent, each arc to ho paid on July 1 and October 1, 1922, and January 1 and> April 1, 1923. The Council did pot debate the Bill except upon the second reading. The Hon. C. IT. Tzard considered that the 1919 Act referring t'o mortgages was nn excellent one. He did not think that any wrong or injustice had been caused by it. He. did' not think it. right, however, that all classes of bodies receiving deposits should have been “lumped together’’ under the moratorium provisions relating .to deposits. He believed it would be to the advantage of the large deposit companies if they were allowed to come out of the scope of the Act. Ho did not think that the moratorium on deposits was of any assistance to them except in the case of a financial panic. Would it not bo possible to enable these companies to contract themselves out of the Act, and enable them to deal with their depositors en bloc? They might then make an arrangement with their depositors and be able to pay out those who really required the money. Some of the depositors might meet the companies by taking short-dated debentures or shares. The Hon. J. P. Campbell said that over the Moratorium Acts framed by Sir Francis Bell there had been loss .litigation than over .any' statutes that had been passed of late years in the Dominion. He suggested that the margin of 1 per cent, between the amount thnt had' to be paid by building societies for the money they received on deposit and the amount they charged for the money they lent on mortgage was not quite sufficient. The Hon. A. F. Hawke congratulated the Attorney-General on the Bill. He thought thnt the position would have righted itself before the end of 1924. Tn the meantime the Bill was going to afford valuable help to those who owed money on mortgage. Sir Francis Bell assured Mr. Izard that the Government, would consider his suggestion. He pointed out that no deposit company bad been forced to come .under the Act; it had been left open to the companies to claim the benefits of the-Act. The door had 'been left open and they had all flocked into the room. He suggested that the deposit companies if they thought fit might call their depositors together and make a new arrangement with the latter. The moment a new arrangement was made it was an arrangement outside the Act, and the Act did not apply. ’• The council passed the Bill without dividing on it. The Bill as amended was sent on to the ; House, which agreed to the amendments. SIR FRANCIS BELL AND HIS CRITICS Such words as “ill-drafted” and "crude” were applied to the Mortgages and Deposits Extension Bill ns originally introduced by the Government in the House of Representatives. While the Legislative Council yesterday had before it the revised Bill passed by the House, the Attorney-General, Sir Francis Bell who has been responsible for the drafting of all tho moratorium legislation, of the past few years, gently rebuked his critics. “I do not want the Government, he said, “to have to bear any odium in a matter for which I am so personally responsible; and I with all humility bow to tho criticism which has been so freely lavished by men far more expert than myself, I understand, to deal with such matters. Let there be no mistake about this: the Government is no more convinced than its Attorney-General that its proposals were not far better than those in tho Bill now before the Council. but the proposals in the Bill now before the Council will fairly meet the ' case, though they do not meet the objections made to. the previous legislation I have felt it an immense compliment that those who objected to the Bill of 1921 had nothing better to fall back upon than tho Act of 1919. No amendment has been proposed to the Act of 1919 except the amendments drafted and suggested by myself, because those who are so competent to criticise do not appear to be. equally competent to. suggest alternatives,”

THE HOLIDAYS BILL OPENING OF LICENSED PREMISES. Tho House of Representatives last night considered the Public Holidays Bill which, as amended by the Labour Bills Committee. contained the following provisions:—“(l) Where provision is made for the granting of a holiday or the observance of certain hours of labour or the payment of certain rates of wages on Sundays, such provisions shall apply without, modification on the Sunday being Christmas Day. (2) Where provision is made for tho granting of 'a holiday or the observance of certain hours of labour or tl>» payment of certain rates of wages on Christinas Day, such provision shall apply on the next succeeding Monday, as if it were Christmas Dav. (3) Where provision is made for the granting of a holiday or the observance ' of certain hours of labour or the payment of certain rates of wages on Boxing Day, such nvovisions shall apply on the next succeeding Tuesday, as if it were Boxing Day.” ~ . Asked how the railwaymen would fare under tho provisions of the Bill, th? Minister in charge slated that they had made their own arrangements with the Department, and were quite satisfied Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said that th? committee had apparently done inadvertently something that it had not intended. Tho amended Bill permitted licensed premises to remain open- on the Monday, whereas the existing law would have required them to be closed. He moved an amendpient providing that the hotels should remain closed. Ho did: not object to the holding of race meetings or other 1 amusements on the Monday. , "The hon. member is asking for two sacred days for Christmas Day,” said Sir John Luke (chairman of the Labour Bills Committee). “The Monday is a secular day. and the Tuesday a secular day, and to read in anything connected with the Licensing Act is simply a contravention of the spirit of the Bill. Mr. L. AT. Isitt (Christchurch North) said that on only two or three holidays in the year was the lure of the bar absent. Many families had their holidays spoilt because the father or the husband spent 'his time in a. bar instead of in their company. He supported tho amendment.

The Afinister in charge of the Bill (Hon. W. D. Stewart) said that the amendment discriminated against one section only. Air. AtcCombs retorted that, the law was being amended to suit only tho hotels.

Air. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) could not see why the Bill 'had been introduced.

A member: But for it. there would have been no sports on the Alonday. - The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. H. E. Holland) said that the party wanted the Bill as it was. He recognised the right of any member to move an amendment, expressing his individual opinion. Mr. J. A. Nash (Palmerston) said that certain shops had to close on the afternoon of the next Wednesday after Christ, mas Day. He thought it would he fair to allow them to open on the Wednesday, in view of the fact that the Alonday and the Tuesday would be whole holidays. ,

Mr. E. Dixon (Patea) considered that tho Bill contained legislation in the interests of the liquor trade. It gave a privilege to the trade that it gave to no other business. Mr. AlcCombs asked the Alinisflfr, whether, but for the Bill, the hotels would have been closed on the Alonday. The Alinister replied that under the Licensing Act of 1908 the hotels would have been open on the Alonday. Butan artificial state of affairs had been created by the Act of 1910. What was being done now had not been instigated by the publicans. He had not been approached by them at any time. The House divided on Mr. McCombs’s amendment, and rejected it bv 51 votes to 7. The Bill was passed in the form recommended by the committee. NEW STANDING ORDERS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL. New Standing Orders were recently prepared for the Legislative Council. Yesterday the Leader of the Council moved that these should be adopted. The Hon. M. Cohen said that 'he was disappointed to find no means provided by which a Minister of the Crown might have charge in both Chambers of legislation which he had introduced. There ought to be some provision for a Afinister to move from one Chamber to the other. It was wrong that a man who had put all his brain power into the preparation of an important Bill should not be allowed e.n opportunity of going to the other branch of the Legislature and expounding tho causes which had led to the introduction of the measure. Sir Thomas Mackenzie and other members took exception Io the clauses providing for the application of the closure in debate. He moved that these clauses should be deleted. The Hon. O. Samuel, who had todrafted the Standing Orders, said that for tho past thirty years there had been in the Standing Orders a provision for a. form of closure more drastic than that now proposed. In the revised Orders he had secured to members protection similar to that afforded members of the House of Commons. 'Die time limit on speeches hall worked unsatisfactorily in the House of Representatives, Sir Thomas Mackenzie’s amendment was rejected by 25 votes to 3. Several members praised the work that the Hon. O. Samuel had done. At the conclusion of the debate the Speaker expressed his thanks to Mr. Samuel, and his belief that the Council had probably a better set of Standing Orders now than was to be found in tho Parliament of any other self-governing Dominion. The revised Orders were adopted.