NO EQUITY

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 67, 16 September 1936, Page 16

NO EQUITY

MR. COATES FINDS FAULT

The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (National, Kaipara) said the Bill they had before them was no improvement on the previous legislation, and he had never heard a worse defence of a measure than that made by Government members. He asked what benefit the farmer who was mortgaged to the Stale was going to get out of the Bill. There was no 20 per cent, equity as had been provided under the legislation his Government had introduced. Could one member of the Government party say where the 20 per cent, equity existed in the Bill?

Mr. J. A. Lee (Government, Grey Lynn): That is easy.

Mr. Coates. said that either the Minister of Finance had let the Prime .Minister down very, badly or Mr.' Savage had .failed to keep the promises he ,had made to the electors, particularly to the farmers? The Government's policy represented a triangle. The first side of the triangle was the guaranteed price, but the guaranteed price was lower than the ruling rate.' The next side of the triangle was the wage the farm labourer was receiving, a wage lower than what could be earned outside, and the third side was the adjustment of mortgages and debts. They still found that the farmer was mortgaged 100 per cent. That was the-measure of relief that the Government proposed to give to the farmer.

Mr. J. Thorn (Government, Thames) He is now mortgaged 150 per cent.

Mr. Coates said that right from the beginning of its. term of office f the Government had spoken about adjusting mortgages in line with the guaranteed price, but the guaranteed price referred at present to only one type of farmer. At any rate, the guaranteed price was below the current price, and there was no guarantee for the future at all. The farmer was being put on the basis of a wages man. The Government's policy seemed to be clear, and that was to collar the equity of the farmer. The farmer's only return for his labour was a reasonable standard of comfort. The Prime Minister had spoken a lot about restoring the equity of the farmer, but where was the restoration of equity in the present Bill? No farmer had yet obtained the full value of the improvements he had put into his land. Unless the farmer secured an equity in his land there was no inducement for him to continue farming.