FINANCE BILL PASSES

Evening Star, Issue 22465, 9 October 1936, Page 4

FINANCE BILL PASSES

£l3 f o€o,aoo AT ONE SITTING LONG SITTING OF HOUSE [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, October 8. Tho House met at 2.30 p.m. The Supplementary Estimates were introduced to provide for an expenditure of £1,718,289, the total for ordinary revenue account being £258,455, Public Works Fund £124,275, other accounts £1,035,559. Urgency was accorded tho passing of the Finance Hill (No. 2), the second reading of which was moved by Mr Nash, who, referring to the £5,750,0(10 for housing, said that sum probably would bo enough for one year, but more might be needed next year. Ho proceeded to explain the clauses of the mu.

Mr Coates thought the Minister of Finance had treated tho House with anything but candour when introducing llio Bill. It involved some of the most important amendments placed before tho House for years. Tho country was entitled to- tho clearest explanation upon the introduction of tho Bill, but what chance, he asked, had the people of the country had of understanding the clauses of the Bill. Tho House was being asked to authorise the Government to borrow thirteen million pounds, and not one word of explanation had been given. The Government had such a large majority that it expected to he able to do as it wished without protest. The House was not told how it was proposed to raise the money, nor what the interest rates were to be.

Mr Fraser; Sheer bunk! Mr Coates: The Government is faced with a very awkward position, and is not giving tho country any details. The Government should be frank. He thought, too, that the rules laid down for the granting of compensation in tho case of land taken under the Public AVorks Act were wrong, and contended that the compensation law in the past had worked very well. Mr Lyon said Mr Nash had dealt with every clause in the Bill, and what more did Mr Coates want. He claimed that adequate safeguards were provided regarding the raising of money by local bodies without polls. Mr Bodkin regretted that more money was not being spent on irrigation. Ho thought the clause dealing with compensation for land should have been referred to the Statutes lievision Committee.

Mr AVright also stressed the advantages to be secured from irrigation. He said the Government had said it was not going to borrow, _ but in the Bill it was taking authority to borrow 13 millions. The Government had not said where the money would come from. It could borrow from tho Public Trustee, the Government Life Insurance Office, or tho Post Office Savings Bank, but interest would have to be paid, and he thought it would he wise for the Government to make a definite, clear statement where the money was to be secured. He thought the expenditure of a large sum on housing would inflate land values, and he wondered if the Government had any scheme to prevent that.

Mr Semple said that for 46 years in New Zealand, when land was taken under the Public Works Act, the court assessed the value of that land at its existing market value; then the law was tested, and the Court of Appeal held that the value of the land should siot he assessed upon its then market value, hut upon what the value was suggested to bo at the time when improvements were carried out. He held that was a fictitious' and false value. The clause as set out in the present Bill was in line with the English law. He wanted the clause passed so that the State would bo protected from that sort of thing.

Mr Dickie said the Minister had not given the House the information it was entitled to when such a large sum was involved, and he was quite jure they would not get 10s worth of value for the money expended. Mr Broadfoot said the House remembered Labour speakers’ statements on previous occasions that the country could not borrow its way to prosperity, and he wondered at the silence of Government members at present. He thought it was not sound that local authorities should have the power to raise a loan without a poll of the ratepayers. Mr Kyle criticised the Government for taking power to borrow when they had objected to it so strenuously in the past. He thought the Government were running at such a pace that they would be like the rail car and go off the rails. The Government when in Opposition had attacked the then Government for giving a concession to the racing clubs, and yet the Government was now giving the same concession.

Mr Endean said New Zealand was in the heyday of prosperity, but in the end they would have financial troubles, and he had grave fears about New Zealand surviving the position. Mr Smith- said Mr Semple’s attitude to the question' of compensation was a marc’s nest. How long, he asked, could New Zealand stand up to the tremendous burden the Government was placing on the people? He asked the Minister of Housing to consider giving workers’ loans from the State Advances Corporation to relieve them from the difficulties they were in with private mortgages. Mr Hamilton said he hoped the money to bo borrowed would be wisely spent. It was some time since the House had been asked to vote 13 million in one night, and there were many other important clauses in the Bill. The Government would be spending 20 million more than last year on railways, roads, and such expenditure; and that was all right when there were plenty of reserves, but what would happen next vear and the year after that? Mr llamiltpn sought details about the method 1, of financing the housing scheme. He said if the Government intended to charge 3 per cent, interest and 2 per cent, sinking fund, it would upset other housing schemes in the Dominion.

Mr Nash, in reply, said the Bill took ■authority to borrow money from the best source from which it could get it. and the savings of the people would be utilised as far as they could be utilised. The Government did not propose to destroy the savings of the people, but would use them to the best jmssible advantage. If other money were required, it would be found, and no one would make a profit out of it. Mr Nash upheld the compensation clause, and said the suggestion that came from the Opposition benches was that the Government should not only pay for a property, but should also pay ihc added value that would come from the expenditure of public moneys. There was no shadow of equity, justice, or common .sense in such an argument.

Ho rlaimecl that he had been quite candid when introducing the Bill. COMMITTEE STAGE. The second reading was carried, and the House went, into committee to consider the Bill. Speaking or, the Short Title. Mr Bodkin .said he wished to make U quite clear that no personal attack was made' on Mr Silverstone (whoso appointment to the Koscrve Bank was validated), and iMr Forbes said il’ it was felt a mistake had been made it would have been better to amend the law than to validate the appointment. Good progress, was made till the clause validating the appointment ol Mr Mark Silverstone was reached. This clause was challenged, hut was retained 43-14. (The clause and debate arc reported under separate headings.) Some time- was spent discussing the clause relating to compensation for land taken under the Public M orks Act. on the lines oi : tho arguments used earlier in the,, debate. The elosnie was moved at 2.5 a.in., and this was carried by -11-14. A division was called lor on tho clause, which was passed by 4! -I I. 'The remaining clauses wore passed, and the Bill was reported without amendment, road a third time, and passed. The House rose at 2.25 a.m.