THE MORATORIUM

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 260, 28 July 1921, Page 7

THE MORATORIUM

EXTENSION ADVOCATED BY N.Z. FARMERS’ UNION At iho conference of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union yesterday, Mr. 11. B. liussell (Hawke's Bay) moved: '‘That owing to the nlain primary products of the Dominion being at present practically worthless, the Government bo asked to extend the moratorium for such further period as it may consider necessary after December 31, 1921, more especially ■nitff respect to fixed mortgages.” Mr. H. J. Stace (Blenheim) suggested that, the conference should advocate provision to ensure that money on fixed mortgage earned the current rate of interest. . , ~ Mr. D. Bates (Eangiora) moved the following as an amendment: That tho conference approves of some measure of Government supervision over the audit of corporations and financial institutions accepting deposits from the public. Mr. A. E. Harding (Mangawherc) felt that the conference was perhaps not competent to express an opinion on the question whether extension of tho moratorium was advisable. He was, however, strongly in favour of Mr. Bates’s proposal. He did not see why corporations should bo permitted to accept deposits unless those deposits were adequately secured bv liquid assets. Mr C K. Wilson (Pio Pio) expressed the opinion that the Government had bundled the moratorium problem better, probably, than any other problem that had arisen during tho war. Mr. W. D. Lysnar, M.P. (Gisborne) thought that it was advisable for the conference to express its opinion on the moratorium. The moratorium applied to mortgages that were ■ growing pretty old now. and not to mortgagee that were new If there was any extension, he Ixdieved it should lie at. current rates. With regard to Mr. Bates’s proposal, tho conference should net very carefully. The companies’ deposits camo principally from shrewd business men who surveyed the position for and did not reouiro advice from the lnr m " ers’ Union. Unless it was shown that there had been some abuse, why should the union interfere? . Mr R D. Duxfield (Auckland' province) said, with regard to fixed mortgages, that a little more consideration should be given to the mortgagee. There should bo some relief for the mortgagee who v.tis not getting the current rate of interest. , Mr. J. A. Macpherson (Oainaru) said he knew of cases in which men had sold their -farms not in order to take advantme of. high prices, but in order to move to more suitable surroundings, so that their families might enjoy better educational facilities. These men had loft tho proceeds of sale on deposit with tho company that had sold the properly. Thev had found suitable new places, and were now unable to obtain the use of their money. , , ~ , Application to a tribunal should be open to men in such circumstances. Captain Colbeck (Auckland) said that some farmers had simply sheltered under tho moratorium. .Mid had not taken the trouble to raise the money for repayment when it was available some time ntro at a reasonable rate of interest. He thought it was fair that the mortgagor in case of extension should pay the hnnk rate. There should be some easy wav in which such an arrangement might be enforced, without the necessity for application to the Court. With regard to Mr. Bates’s suggestion, he though the conference should lot well The president ruled that Mr. Bates s proposal could not Im accepted ns an amendment of the motion Mr W W. Mulholland (Darfidd) mored the following amendment: "That there bo added to tho remit the words ■ 'But that tho onus of proving that tho rale of interest is too high be on the mortgagor.”’ ... .... Mr. J. S. Jessen (Napier) said if the conference was going to contend that the onus of proof should be thrown on to tho' farmers, then the conference was not worthy of tho confidence of the farmers. , ' . Mr. Mulholland’s amendment was defeated without further discussion. Mr. Bussell's remit was carried. Mr. Bates’ proposal was put as a separate motion, and lost.