MORTGAGE BILL UNDER FIRE

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 49, 27 February 1935, Page 9

MORTGAGE BILL UNDER FIRE

SLOW PROGRESS IN COMMITTEE

SHORT TITLE PASSED BY 13 VOTES

AMENDMENT RULED OUT OF ORDER

V _' The long debate on the short title of the Mortgage Corporaj .lion Bill concluded in the House of Representatives last night, r and the House rose after this accomplishment. The discussion followed along the lines of the second reading, speeches, although members paid greater attention to the detailed provisions of the , .measure.; There was a brush between the Minister of Finance (the ; Right Hon. J. G.-Coates) and Mr. W.J. Poison (Govt., Stratford) : ; on the attitude of-.the farming community towards the inclusion of ■J share-capital, and Mr. W. A. Veitch (Ind., Wanganui) endeavoured. " without success, to divide the House on the question of retaining , the State Advances Department distinct from the Corporation, but ,■■?■ in reorganised form. His amendment was ruled out of order. The ;~ short title was carried by 38 votes to 25..

'■"■ Mr. W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) said jhat up to February. 20 last the borough of : Lower Hutt had lost £30,123 in rates through properties reverting to the State Advances Department and the Crown. During the financial year 1034-35 the amount lost was £11,471, and it was obvious that the Government \va.S suffering a hardship. The rates lost amounted to 50s per head of population, and 'there, was ho' reason why the Government Departments should not pay the full rates that were levied on the properties, if they were rented up to their economic value, instead of using the money to wipe off arrears. .Mr. A. S. Richards (Labour, Roskill) said that the Mount Albert borough had lost up to the end of the last financial year over £10,000 on properties under the, control of Government/ departments. It was a serious matter; for local bodies. .-,-. ".-.'.-.V ■;.■•■.. Mr. Coates said that he understood the position of the Hutt .borough, but at the sametime the State ; could not accept responsibility for rates. "I say: we cannot accept the responsibility for fieneral rates, or all rates," he said. "The Crown has assisted in, certain special cases." -. . : The Minister pointed out that where relief was applied for to the Mort-' gagors' Relief Commissions and an adjustment was. made, rates became a first. charge, except where- the local authority agreed to some modification. Mr. Coates expressed the opinion that when mortgages were finally adjusted boroughs and county councils would be in a better position than if the State Advances Department were kept separate. As adjustments took place so would local body rates become chargeable on the land. At the present stage it was not possible for the Crown to admit liability. It would cost not less .than £500,000 a year—-probably more^-and it was thought that it was unreasonable for that sum to fall on the Consolidated. Fund at the- present stage. It was hard on some local bodies,'but as far as the Hutt was concerned it had to be remembered that much development was taking place there as a result of the Government's activities. The district would hot be collecting the amount of rates ;t was collecting today had it not been for those activities. ~: ' Mr., Nash: It wouldn't have : cost the sam6Jp have run-the borough. '--. .: : Mr. Coates:' I am not able to answer that, but in the broad sense the Hutt would not have, been half the size had the Government not made settlement possible. If the Crown were' responsible for rates, local bodies would hot go to' trouble' in collecting' them. ;■ IMr. Nash: That won't bear examination. ""■ '■ [ . .;. \ .'; .■'■■'■■■ •'■ ,; ;. . . ; Mr. Coates:' Do the local bodies really try 'arid collect the rates? Wouldn't.it be much easier to go to the Crown? .." . . '■Mr. Nash: The Crown is the hardest to get anything from. :. : ■.;...' V . SHOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED. : The Minister said that it was not considered a "fair, thing to place £500,000 on,to the shareholders as far as State mortgages handed over were concerned. There' would . bean adjustment, between the Corporation and the State in.the first place, and actually thfe 'local authorities would be better off than they were, at present, where the Crown did/not accept, responsibility aVall. It was.estimated "that the 'period '• of adjustment would be about ■flye;- years, and it was contended' that "the Corporation should riot be prejudiced in. its initial stages. ' •■* Mr. Nash said his point was that when the State Advances Office took over, a property and leased it they should be responsible for rates. They 'were getting services and not paying for them. ) -Mr. Coates: Oh yes, they are. Mr: Nash: Somebody else is-"being compelled to pay. I am 'asking that the Corporation should not be freed in circumstances such as I mentioned; : Mr. A. M. Samuel (Independent, Thames) ■ declared that farmers .throughout the country had condemned the Bill. It had been said that the objections of the farmers' had been based oh wrong evidence, but he ventured to • say that in his' ■ electorate, which was largely a farming one, not JUper cent, of the farmers would derive any benefit from the measure. "I know of farmers who do not know the tune because they can't afford ' a licence for their wireless, and others who' have had ho meat in their house for three weeks," said Mr. Samuel. "If there was anything "good in the Bill I would support the Minister of Finance, as I have supported him in the past." :;Mr. Coates: Not often. ■• Mr. Samuel: The Minister has a very badv-memory on this occasion, and a •very good one when it suits him. He ihas stated that the Bill is going through, but I say there is a majority of members in this House opposed to ; the shareholder-capital provision. Yet this Bill is going through in spite of the convictions of the members of his ..own party. I ask the Minister to wipe vested interests out of this Bill altogether. Make it a State organisajtion with a State guarantee, and then we can be sure that the farmer is going to get/some assistance. Question of sincerity. ,-, Mr. W. J. Poison (Government, Stratford) said it had been suggested by ,the Minister of Finance that he was less than sincere in his attitude to the BUL ■""■■. ■■•'•jar.. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central): Oh, he was very wild with you.. - : Mr. Poison: I have never accused the avJinister of any lack of sincerity, and I was hoping he would give me credit for equal sincerity. I would remind the Minister that he met the executive of the Farmers' Union, and after hearing him the executive, passed a motion .opposing share-capital and asking for a plan that would bring about an immediate reduction in interest rates. The farmers are undoubtedly nervous of the effect of this Bill. They are so .perturbed about the Bill that rather than see it go through in its present form they would prefer no Bill at all. Mr. Coates: Are you opposing the Mortgage Corporation? . Mr. Poison: I am saying that the Bill

in its present form is not acceptable to the farming community. The machinery provided, might suit very well if the control were in the proper hands. '' .; " : .;': ; Mr. Coates: Am I wrong in saying that the New Zealand Farmers' Union approved of the principle of the Bill? Mr. Poison: The Farmers' Union has said that it approves of the«. machinery. Mr. Coates: Have they approved of the Corporation? Mr. Poison: They have said time and again that they will not stand for sharecapital. ' They think that principle vitiates the Bill altogether. ; WAS THERE AN INSTRUCTION? Mr. Coates: The hon. gentleman was instructed to vote, for the Bill. Mr. Poison: By whom? *"'•;■' Mr. Coates: By the farmers. ■ Mr. Poison: Nothing of the kind. I don't know whereyou got that 'information. •:'.;■ ••■-..- ; - "-< ;• "■ Mr. Coates: I got the resolution from the hon. gentleman's own meeting. Mr. Polsoni I have no recolleptibh of any such instruction. I reserve the right 'to: exercise my own judgment in this House, arid it's a pity some other members don't do It here: I can show the Minister resolutions' from meetings throughout this country. ■'■''" Mr. Coates: And I'can show other ones." ■■' ' ' ■•"■"■"■■- ■"'■ '• .■ ' ■ ■':. ■■ 'Mr. Poison: I don't think you can show resolutions from farmers' meet ings'.- ;;■'■ ■ ■'•■'..■'■ ■ '■■ ': ■■■' '■' • ■ '";■ Mr. Coates quoted a resolution carried at a meeting'of' farmers at Mayfieldin support of, the Bill. Mr. • Poison: : Where is Mayfieid? (Laughter.) Some small branch in ah out-of-the-way district. I must say. I have never been there. ■' : ' Mr. R. McKeen (Labour, Wellington South) said that,many people were concerned^ with the transference .of State Advance.loans to the Corporation. State mortgagors were wonde'rihg what was td: be the'effect on them. Mr. R. Semple (Labour^ Wellington East) said the' commercial and flnaiicial interests of the country did not want the Bill and the farmers did not want the Bill."Under those circumstances it was a fair thing to'ask who did want it "■]'■ TIME TO CONSIDER. Mr. W. A; Veitch (Independent, Wanganui) moved to postpone the operation of the Bill-until-next September. He said that Parliament would meet again in September, and by that time the Press, the public,. members, and farmers would have; had time to consider the implications of the Bill. The Minister of .Justice, (the Hon. J. G. Cobbe): You want to postpone the. relief to the farmers. J, .-•-■'• Mr: Veitch: The Minister'doesn't know what I want, , and. I ' doubt whether he knows what he wants, but I don't blame him in the circumstances. Mr. Veitch said that the Bill was a panic measure which the Minister of Finance was, endeavouring -to :push through the House. The high exchange legislation was rushed through the Houseon the ground that it was a desperately urgent proposal. Members had been told that the farmers would be ruined if the".legislation, were: not passed. The, same action .was taken with; 'the agricultural dictatorship. Again' the House was told that; the Bill was desperately urgent, but .many weeks elapsed before the dictatbrshio was kpppintedi The Minister's mental outlbbk-was 'one of panic, and' yet the position could be met by a simple.modiflcationof theexistuig law.'.The'.MbrtT gage Corporation Bill iwas a reorganisation; of the'mortgage system of the country, and should not be embarked upon 'until the Government had' put the isstfe before the people: at a General Election. There was a grave dan-. ger that future generations would have to carry an intolerable burden of taxation. ■ ■■.-■.■•-. i I l;l HIS OWN; JUDGMENT., '/■ Mr. Poison said that the Minister of Finance had read_ a telegram in favour of the Bill passed by ;a' meeting of farmers at Mayfieid, an. irrigation district in South Canterbury, but the great majority; of the farmers' were against some of its vital provisions. It was being alleged that he (Mr. Poison) had been instructed to vote for v the Bill, but that was incorrect. He had received'no-instructions, and at all times exercised his own judgment. The national executive of the New Zealand Farmers' Union had approved of the Mortgage' Corporation, provided that Jtl) it secured for the farmers a reduction in - the rate of farmers' interest charges,'and (2) it was under co-opera-tive controller alternatively State control, preferably the former. A number of resolutions opposing the provision of shareholder capital had been passed by branches of the ■Farmers' Union all over the Dominion. ....-.-... Mr. Coates: We all have those. Mr. Poison: I am glad that the Minister has them! Why did he quote the; resolution of one small- meeting of farmers? Mr. Coates:'All the resolutions are the same. ; ■ Mr. Poison: There are no two resolutions alike. In many of them the approach to the problem is different. Mr. Coates: They were prepared. Mr. Poison: They were not prepared in any way.. They were spontaneous expressions of opinion by the farmers. The Farmers' Union, which represented 30,000 financial members, was opposed to share-capital. , ANOTHER AMENDMENT. Subsequently,' Mr. Veitch withdrew his amendment in favour of another to provide that the title of the Bill should be altered to "the State Advances Amendment Bill." Mr. Veitch said he moved the amendment because he, and apparently a number of other members, felt that all that was necessary could be done by a very considerable modification of the present measure. If the title were altered amendments could then be made to the remainder of the Bill. "We have reached a critical stage in the political history of New. Zealand," said Mr. Veitch. "The Minister comes along with a huge reorganisation scheme, and asks that members should vote for it because they -were regarded as supporters of the Government at the last election. No

member can escape his duty td his constituents in that way, nor can the Prime Minister escape his responsibility in> the matter.' This is a long way from the agreement reached between the two parties when they joined together. It is a very serious encroachment '-on the 'rights of the people." . The Chairman of Committees (Mr. J. A. Nash) ruled the amendment put of order on the ground that the amendment was foreign to the Bill. : This ruling was challenged by Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central), who submitted that the Bill dealt with the State Advances Department. It was apparentlythe feeling of a large section of .the House" that there was a necessity for retaining the State Ad-; vances Department. Mr. Veitch moved that Mr. Speaker's ruling should be obtained, but this was defeated by 37 votes to 26. i A division was taken on the short title, and this was retained by 38 votes to 25/ the.division, list being as f 01-1 lows:^- , : •

Ayes (38). Ansell, ' Jull Bitchener. .Kyle Broadfoot Linklater Burnett X-iye ." Campbell Clinkard McSkimming Coates .Massey, J. N. Cobbo : - -Massey, W. W. Connolly Murdoch ■ Dickie Poison Endean Ransom Field ; Reid Forbes Smith Harris-. Stewart, Hon. D. Hawke Stuart, A. Healy ■ Sykes Henare Te Tomp Holland Williams Holyoake Young '■■- ; '': Noes (25). .:■"■ Armstrong Nash, W. Atmore O'Brien Barnard ': , Parry Carr Richards Chapman. , ; Samuel Fi-aser Savage Howard Schramm Jones -: Semple Jordan Stallworthy Langstone Veitch Lee Wilkinson McKeen . Wright Munro ■ Pairs.

Far: Macmillan, Hamilton, Macpherson, de. la Perrelle. Against: Webb, McCombs, McDougall, Sullivan.