PARLIAMENT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLIV, Issue 9874, 23 July 1923, Page 7

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(Per Press -^gociation.) This Day. Notice of intention to introduce Bills was given bour Vexing and Empowering (Mr Muxxdoch), Savings Bank Act Amendnieat (Air Massey), Dunedin City [Drainage and Sewerage (Hon. W. D. i Stewart). . . , ! The following Bills were read a first time: Wyndham Recreation Reserve Act Amendment (Hon. G. J. Anderson) and Christchurch , District Drainage Act Amendment (Mi* Isitt). j Chairman of Committees, j Sin George Hunter gave notice of his intention to move that Mr J. A. Young (Hamilton) be appointed chair- , man of committees. j State Advances. The House went into committee on the State Advances Act Amendment Bin. , , v . On Clause 1, short title, a good deal of criticism was levelled _at departmental lack of enterprise in the provision of housing. Mr. Massey replied that so long as the security was good the Workers’ Dwellings Act would operate. There was a board in existence whose duty was to examine valuations, and he, as head of the Department, could not interfere with the board’s action. All he could do was to see that sufficient valuers were appointed to cany out valuations. He agreed that sub-iessees, where the security was adequate, should iiave the benefit of the Act. Lessees of Native lands were already provided for. All legitimate requirements of settlers and workers would be met without any avoidable delay. The Prime Minister added that he •wished to see advances restored as early as possible to the figures formerly operative, £35000 foil settlers and £1250 for workers. In the case of a worker applying for an advance, the iPrime Minister advised' that he should see that his house was built at a reasonable price. He should not pay more than a day’s wage per week in interest charges on the loan. Mr Holland asked if the Advances Board was to have power to supersede the Act in the matter of making advances. The board should be obliged

to grant any application so long as everything was in order, thus keeping the 1919 Act in full operation. The Prime Minister, in reply, said that he thought the board had power to overide the superintendent in certain cases. It was sometimes found t at, although everything appeared in 1 roper older, there were other factors bearing on the position making the grant of an advance inadvisable. As showing that the Department was not halting its operations, Mr Massey said that advances of all sorts to local bodies and private applicants during the three months ended June 30 last amounted to £882,160. and he expected that this amount would be doubled in the next three months.

Mr Masters said he would at the proper stage move an amendment, the effect of which would be to repeal blause 16 of the Act of 1922, the effect of which would be that, where anyone wished to borrow money to pay off a mortgage, he should be able to do so at the same rate of interest as the advance granted on unpledged security. Replying to further points raised, the Prime Minister said that lie hoped to be able to advance more money to local bodies and to settlers. Especial attention would be necessary in the latter case to assist settlers requiring advances . to meet mortgages that would have to lie repaid when the moratorium ended. He as Minister must be careful in making advances, or he would have difficulty in finding money for the last-named purpose. At' the evening sitting Mr Poland protested against the proposal to charge borrowers oj- per cent, when they required money to pay off a mortgage, whereas a man who had no mortgage could borrow at 4£. He asked the Prime Minister to place country settlers on the same footing as workers in towns, viz., lend them up to 95 per cent, of the value of their nrepertv. The proposal in the Bill was most unfair, because there was far less risk with a settler who held afarm than with a worker who wanted

a house. , n , Mr Masters also protested against differentiation between settlers and workers. One was .just as essential to the prosperity of the country as the Mr Massey, 'in reply, contended that if they attempted to relieve everybody from existing mortgages the Advances Department simply would be swamped There would be tens of thousands of applicants, and he could not see that people who already had mortgages and were protected by the moratorium should have preference over people who wanted to make a new start. ; in at was the justification for charging a, higher rate for money required to pay off existing mortgages. The House agreed to that provision last session without the slightest protest, and he could not understand the present opposition. , „ „ . Mr J. M. Dickson urged the Prime Minister to modify bis Bill in the direction of equalising the rate of interest between old and new mortgages. Mr Massey: If you want to spoil the Bill that is'the way to do it. After further protest by Mr Dickson, Mr Massey said he would ask the House to make the minimum 5 per cent Mr Dickson said that would be better. ...... , „ Air Massey: The responsibility lests with the House. The short title of the Bill then was agreed to, and the remaining clauses were quickly passed. Mr Masters moved a now clause repealing sub-section 1 of clause 16 of the State Advances Act, 1922, which provides that money required to pay off mortgages should be an additional 1 per cent, interest over new loans. Mr Massey said lie had just consulted with the head of the Department concerning the amendment, and he agreed that if passed it would strike at the very root of the measure and undo all the good work already done. Air Wilford said he pould not sechow it would wreck the Bill, hut it would save the Government from itself. A division was called for, when the voting was: For the amendment, 28; against the amendment, 32. . The Bill was finally read a third time and passed.