MORTGAGE BILL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 43, 20 February 1935, Page 9

MORTGAGE BILL.

VARIOUS OPINIONS.

FARMERS ON A BUDGET.

MR. RUSHWORTH OPPOSED.

(By Telegraph.—l'arllamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, this day.

■ Signs that the second reading debate on the Mortgage Corporation Bill is petering out were not lacking in the House of Representatives last night, when the discussion followed lines that were patently thin. A suggestion by Mr. A. J. Stallworthy that speeches of one hour, instead of half an hour, should bo permitted, did not find favour with the Prime Minister, who indicated that the request might have been 'justified had members been ru'opounding ,fresh arguments, and in any case the House would always grant an extension if the nature of a member's remarks warranted

The Budgetary method of rehabilitating mortgagors which has become so common in the Dominion, and is included in the provisions of the Mortgage Corporation Bill, was strongly denounced by Mr. H. M. Rushworth (Country, Bay of Islands), who considered that it reduced farmers to a condition of slavery. ' First examining the possibilities of the measure in the way of reducing interest, lie declared that the reductions were microscopic, and under a system which only prolonged the agony. So far there had been no information as to the rates of interest which would be charged, and everyone was left guessing. He first approached the bill with a glowing enthusiasm, and in the hope that it provided a measure of permanent relief to the dairy farmers and other debtors, but he had been bitterly disappointed "with this phantom mouse induced by the toiling of the mountain."

"State of Peonage." It was proposed to hand over the debtor to a form of Budgetary control. He had seen that in operation, and God forbid that it should be extended. So far as he could discover, there was not any difference between that state and a state of peonage, except that it would be only for a period of five years, with a possible extension to ten. Then they had no guarantee that the Government would' be in power, and that there would be a Government of the same mind. Durir.3 that ten-year period they would have destroyed the greatest asset of this country, for putting farmers under Budgetary control meant robbing them of their initiative, self-reliance and self-respect. At the end of the period they would not be fit to carry on. He could see no difference between them and a poverty-stricken peasantry.

The Hon. A. D. McLeod (Government Wairarapa): How many are under Budgetary control now?

"I don't know, but far too many," retorted Mr. Kushworth, who predicted that the effect on the rising generation would be that they would refuse to have anything to do wi'th the land, but would strike out into other occupations, overcrowding them, and generally lowering the standard of living in the community. Mr. A. Stuart (Government, Rangitikei): What would you do with the inefficient farmer? Mr. Kushworth: Do the same as I would with the inefficient member of Parliament. I think you would earn your honorarium better on relief work. "Hot Air." The answer to this criticism came from the next speaker, Mr. H. G. Dickie (Government, Patea), who declared that a lot of "hot air" was being talked by people who knew nothing about budgetary control. It was a method which involved concessions by every party, and a certain amount of control of the farmer to enable him to get on to the rails again so that he could work at a profit. In his own district a considerable number of the farmers were under it, probably getting £3 to £4 per week as an allowance to. live on, plus butter, meat, firewood and house rent. If one inquired closely into the transactions one would find that generally they had paid £20 or £30 to get on to their farms. He could give instances where men who had "drifted to the bad" to the extent of thousands were now showing quite a substantial profit in this bad year for the farmer. In budgetary control, every creditor had to make a concession, and the banks had brought down interest to 2 and 3 per cent. To talk about reducing the farmer to a state of peonage was so much "hot air."