GOVERMENT ADVANCES TO WORKERS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXII, Issue 93, 17 October 1906, Page 3

GOVERMENT ADVANCES TO WORKERS.

AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. • tSLP TO BUILD HOMES. ' c : if, In the' House of Representatives yesterday afternoon the Premifer moved the second 'reading of tho Government Advances to Workers Bill. He» said that he thought members wfculd agree thst the Bill was a valuable measure and one that would confer upon a, number £ ot people throughout the colony an opportunity te- acquire homes for thoaural.ru on easy .terms. It empowered th© Superintendent of the AdT%nc6a to Settlers Office to advance Bums r of up to £350 on urban and cuburban land, the benefits of the Bill bejny to workers of small means iv to >Tis and suburbs who desire* to _ erect hennas for themselves. It should \» notpd'-that the worker who desired to borr<nr more than the maximum sum unqeV the Bill could make use of the existing clauses of the Advances to Settlers Act. The advance under the Bill was not to exceed three-quarters of the total value of tho property after the building had been erected, so that it •worked out more liberally than the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition to advance up to four-fifths of the value of the land. There wsa also provision for progress payments as th© building proceeded so that the worker would not have to meet the cost of financing the contract. Repayments were to be by equal J half-yearly payments for thirty-six years, 'and one^Salf, and would be based on six .per oen^. on the man. advanced. This ■would meet interest and repayment of interest, ,and the whole sum would be paid ofij in the period named. The proposal was* very liberal, and he- Jiad no doubt -tlwt it would vastly assist, many ■work* jSJ» r A provision to be noted was that uHrifr which a borrower might at any tit-'^pake repiyment3 in sums of 55 or multiples of £5. The Premier explained the machinery clauses of the Bill, and- continued that he thpught tEat every ,point-had been met that required to be met in.ia>s)chem& of such a comprehensive naturt° < &&' this, for ho ventured to say •"that it was on a much wider scale than *[axrd*gxtg hitherto proposed. •'. "3 J'^der of the Opposition said he '• . 'ji agreed tnat this was a most J^-i. v 'tfifcujneasure. „ Mr. Massey then wenj 0* to. refer to the Premier's oppositior^srmius (Mr. Massey's) amendment, propcS.-'stawhen the Advances to Settlers Bui oP'this session was under consideration. <'jgß complained that the Premier had gi^en him. no credit in connection with tfl.e Bill, and proceeded to. show in •wisat respects his own. proposals and the Premier's coincided. "In my proposal," said Mr. Massey, "we were to lend up to £400." The'limit in this Bill is £350. I proposed that advances should be made by instalments as the erection ofthe building proceeded. This Bill also proposes that." Mr. Massey also claimed that the term of the loan" he had proposed (36i years') was exactly the same «3 the Government proposed, also the rate of interest payable^ — 5 per cent, with the 10 per cent, rebate. In his proposal, the borrower was to be allowed to pay off any sum in addition to the yearly instalments, and that, also was proposed in me Bill. The Prem%r had also claimed that his (Mr. Massey's) proposal would not. work properly in connection ■with the Advances to Settlers Act of. this session, yet clause 1 read that this Bill should form part of arid be read together' ■with the Government Advances to Settlers Acb 1906. He would support the Bill, and if it did not reach the statute book this session it would be the Government's, fault. Mri Buddo, while retaining the opinion that -the flat system was the best, to house workers in towns, thought the present Bill would be of effective use. His chief objection was that the BilL ought to provide for the building on any laad irstead of on urban or suburban land. Workers in the country districts were very much in need of its provisions, and he did not think that, if this was agreed to, there would be any greater demand on tb.e Treasury. SCr. Flotirura conceded Mr. Massey a little credit in connection with the Bill, but claimed that he (Mr. Flatman) was *the father of the Bill. " He said that he was pleased that the Government had taken the hint he had giveD by bringing the matter up on the order paper. (Laughter.) He agreed with Mr. Buddo that country workers should also have been provided for. Mr. Baume said he approved of the Bill. Ha did cot believe in the Government 1 ! owning land f.nd having tenants, bat he" did beliave in their assuming the functions of money lenders to a greater degrest than at present. He thought thafthV Scope of the Bill should be enlargrfd by making-, the limit of yearly income in the definition, "worker" £300 instead *of £200. 'Mr. T. X: Sidey (Caversham) conjrratulated .the Government on its Bill. He said that to those workers who had been' able to save a little money, th© Bill would appeal much more forcibly ttrfa^ did the Workers' Dwellings Act. A man who had saved £100 could purchase a- piece of land and borrow £300 from the -Government to erect a home. The' total value of the- holding would then be £400, and a payment of £18 per' year would meet principal and interest, and give the worker a free home in thirty-six years. Mr. ,Gy " Laurenson (Lyttelton) said thaii,;(j->f- I 'ias very glad to sco that the Opposition recognised the need .of the ■workers.' He did not believe that workera should be- encouraged to live in the towns. They should bo rather encouraged by such legislation as that before fn« House 'and. by cheaper and more rapid Means of ingress and egress in connection with the towns, to make homes for themselves in the country. Mr. Laureceon mentioned the desirableness of tke GoTernment taking power to acquire email blocks of land in fhe immediate neighbourhood of towps for the benefit of the workers, and eaid that he did not think the benefits of th« Bill should be confined to town workers. Mr. R. H. Rhodes (Ellesmere) said that the Bill should be extended to the country workers, with an additional provision enabling country workers to 6ecuro one or two acres of land surrounding their homes. Mr. Fisher (Wellington Central) said that he thought that the limit of £350 was too low. Mr. Barber (Newtown) supported the Bill, and urged that tb* limit should be extended to £500 in cases where sufficient •Bounty was offered. In Wellington, at ijDy rate, the sum of £350 would not £rovide a decent home for a family. Mr. Jas. Allen (Bruce) said that to extend the Bill too far would be to rink the whole scheme breaking down. The House should begin with the poorest men on the lines of the Bill as introduced by the- Government. He suggested that there should be State inspection of the buildings until a reasonable climber of instalments had been paid. Mr. Bollard (Eden) demanded that something should be done for the poor man who had a big family, no money, and no land. The- Premier, in reply, stated that he did not want to take away any credit from the leader of the Opposition, but a* a matter of fact the details of the Bill had been taken from th« Advances to Settlers Bill of an earlier date, and had not had any connection with Mr. Mas«ey'a proposal. M he had *aid before.

Mr. Maf&sy's suggestion would havo merely limited the scope of the Advances to Settlers* scheme. He had consulted Hansard, and he found that in 1894 Messrs. Jame3 Allen and Massey had voted against the Advances to Settlers Bill containing the provisions now embraced in the present Bill. The Government had submitted a Bill that met with generaj acceptance, and it was complimentary that so many people should desire to take the credit for it. He did not think that the limit •of £350 should be increased. The sum mentioned would build the sort of cottage desired by the poorer people, and to extend the limit would "bring in -people of better financial position and reduce the amount available for tho poorer class. The Bill had been limited to tho towns, because tb.4 Advances to Settlers Aot covered the needs of the country. The Bill was read a. second time without opposition.