RURAL FINANCE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 136, 21 March 1935, Page 3

RURAL FINANCE

FINAL ADJUSTMENT BILL.

THE SECOND READING DEBATE.

(Per Press Association). WELLINGTON, March 20. The second reading debate on the Rural Mortgagors' Bill was resumed in the House to-day.

Mr A. E. Jull (0., Waipawa) asked the Minister to withdraw Part 5 of the Bill. It would come into operation for five years and there was plenty of time to make the provisions contained in that part, if necessary. That part of the Bill was fraught with the greatest danger, and he thought it would be a source of trouble between mortgagee and mortgagor.

Mr W". E. Barnard (Lab., Napier) said he was not at all surprised that some members of the Coalition P art y had objected to Part 5 of the Bill, and he congratulated Mr Jull on expressing definite objections to that part. He contended that when the equity clause was withdrawn or amended there was almost nothing left in the Bill. He contended that no farmer would welcome the budgetary system. Every man desired independence to run his own financial affairs. *

Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egmont) said the Bill was a step in the right direction and! he congratulated the Minister on trying to meet the position in a more liberal way than members of the party were evidently willing to go. Nevertheless he thought that the Bill would be of vital assistance to the farmer who was in difficulty. Farmers wanted the immediate writing-off of lost capital and also wanted a low rate of interest to tide them oyer the present crisis. However, they did not want to wait five years. He suggested that the term of budgetary control be reduced to two years. The term 'peonage' had been used during the debate. He believed that many farmers were jn that state to-day, and the Bill would assist them. The Bill also gave them security of tenure and enabled them to remain on their farms in a hope that better times would come along. He hoped that the Government would accept reasonable amendments jn committee. He suggested 1 that farmers should be provided with legal advice free of charge in the preparation of cases for the court of commission. Mr Wright added that if a business man asked for assistance he woufd be sent to a charitable institution. The Bill had staggered the business community, which was wanting to know what the Government was going to do next. All the Bill would do would be to keep up the artificial price of land.

Others Need Assistance. Mr P. C. Webb (Labour, Buller) asked what provision the Bill was going to make for 50,000 farmers who were on the verge of bankruptcy, for the 74,000 unemployed workers and •45,000 business men who were in difficulties. . ~ .* • ! Mr A. Stuart (0., Rangitikei) said he could see nothing wrong with the budgetary! system as a man would be able to live comfortably. A farmer would have plenty of milk, butter and other foodstuffs and was much better off than a man in the city. He thought that farmers should be pleased to accept the budgetary system. He thought that the slump would eventually do a great deal of good, as many farmers had §one on the land with insufficient capital. The Bill would go a long way to remedy the position. Weeding Out Inefficients. Mr W. P- Endean (C., Parnell) said the Bill was absolutely necessary m the interests of the farmer. What was necessary in New Zealand was that the mortgagor should be freed from worry so that he could then devote himself to the development of his farm If a competent organisation was appointed, the inefficient farmer who had no chance of succeeding would be quickly put off the land and someone else put in his place. Dealing with the equity clause, he said that the provision would not stand any test. It was absolutely opposed to all legal principles. He agreed with Mr Wilkinson that the period of five years oi budgetary control should be substantially cut down. He thought that the mortgagee should have some right to take action. At the same time he congratulated the Government on taking a bold step. Mr R. A. Wright (Ind., Wellington Suburbs) said there was a great deal of sob stuff about farmers' difficulties. In many/ cases farmers bought land with their eyes open at a too high price and when they got into difficulties non-farmers were expected to come to their aid.

"Merely Pretence." Mr A. J. Stallworthy (Ind., Eden), eaid that so far as the general interests of farmers, particularly dairy farmers, were concerned, they had never been more misrepresented than they were to-day. The Bill was merely a pretence at doing something for the farmer Be suggested that the Prime Minister should abandon his proposed trip to England and should immediately ask for the dissolution of Parliament in order to seek a mandate from the people. Mr D. W. Coleman (Lab., Gisborne), said that the farmers under the Bill would be nothing more than glorified caretakers, and the treatment meted out to the unemployed would be meted out to farmers under budgetary control. .. ~ , Mr F. Lye (0., Waikato), said that mortgagees had made substantial contributions in the past to mortgagors, and he thought that mortgagees were to be congratulated on the way they had met those carrying on the primary industries of the Dominion. The Bill was a genuine attempt' to have a na,tional stocktaking. Capital losses had taken place, adjustment had to be made, and he believed that both parties to the contract should make equal sacrifices. The machinery was set up in the Bill to bring them together before the Mortgage Adjustment Commissions, and he thought that both mortgagors and mortgagees would benefit from the probationary period. The debate was adjourned and the House rose at 11.30 p.m.