It is not very easy to follow this Bill, because it is largely a matter of reference, but it appears —I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—as if Section 10 of the 1932 Act is repealed. All the provisions in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) are repealed, but apparently paragraph (h) is reinserted. It appears that every person, other than those covered under paragraphs (a) and (h), is struck out from the provision granting exemption of rates or relief of rates. If that is the case, a very large section of the community who are building houses or buying utility houses and various other classes are treated very harshly. I should like to ask if that is correct, because paragraph (h) looks innocent enough until you refer to the Principal Act. I should like to know if my assumption is correct, that large sections of the community who have put up or bought houses are going to have the concession which they got in respect of rates swept away. At the present time, the building of houses is not getting cheaper and these people are certainly entitled to the remissions which they formerly enjoyed.
Committee on Finance. - Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1935—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The rates remission given in the 1932 Act in respect of new houses stands. What is done here is to remove the rates remission from anything but reconstructed farm houses. They get the benefit of the rates remission but not the farm buildings.
How do the other classes retain their rights? It appears to me that their rights are taken from them by the repeal of that section of the Principal Act.
They are not taken away. There is power reserved in the Bill, despite that section, to continue the rates remission to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 and the Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.