PARLIAMENT

Evening Star, Issue 21966, 28 February 1935, Page 7

PARLIAMENT

PROGRESS OF MORTGAGE BILL BITTER QPPOSITION (Per United Press Association. ) . WELLINGTON, February. 27. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Tbe eommittee stage of the Mortgage Corporation Bill was resumed, and already at least toil amendments are in sight. Mr Savage asked the House to vote against clause 3, which provided for the sotting up of the corporation, as ho hold it was not necessary. Mr Forbes said the corporation would assist lending, and was a genuine attempt to improve the country’s position. He did not expect the Leader of the Opposition to see any nrerit in anything brought down by the Government. it was booed by the creation of the corporation that the. money needed by the farmers would bo made available. As a farmer himself, he knew the farmers would welcome that. Mr Munro asked if the agencies to be established would have all powers to treat with mortgagors. He would prefer to see the corporation establish branches throughout New Zealand. Mr Semple said the measures before' the House in the last three years had been designed to help the farmers, and had resulted in greater taxation on the people. Mr Yeiteh said the amount of mortgages affected by the Bill would represent a voting power of £250,000 —an organisation of mortgagors which would create a strong political force. Mr Voitch added that this force would be able to press for almost any measures to alter the provisions of the Bill and demand concessions they were not entitled to in equity. Mr Chapman said the extent to which the corporation could secure cheap money was determined by the amount of Government guarantee behind it. It that guarantee were taken away no cheap money would be obtainable. The clause was carried by 36 to 27. On clause 5, Mr Poison moved to delete the provision for shareholder capital. Mr Samuel said the farmer, and (he believed) a majority of the people outside the House were opposed to shareholder capital. Ho believed shareholder capital would see that the rate of interest was kept up, and so_ keep the farmer in shackles for all time. Mr Langstone drew' attention to the fact that the Government ■ at the request of the board, could alter the schedule to the Bill, and once the measure was passed, the Government could alter it in any way it chose. Mr Poison said he proposed to move a similar amendment to the following sub-clause, his idea being to remove private shareholders altogether. Inc amendment was defeated by 36 to 25. Mr Savage moved an amendment to the same manse. In the direction of removing the provision that the schedule may be amended at the request ot the board. He said the Government was handing itself over to the board, and it was taking the control from the Government, which would be unable to take any action in future. The board would be absolute masters of the situation. , Mr Stallworthy contended it was wrong that the Government should be able to act only at the request of the board. The whole position was preposterous. , , Mr W Nash said that under the existing schedule, the Government had no power to do anything. He. suggested that the Governor-General in Council should have power to amend the schedule if he wished to do so. Mr Coates said the clause had received a great deal of consideration. If it was found desirable at anj; time, if trouble arose between the Government and the board, Parliament, could amend the Act. He thought it advisable that the board should have complete control, and even if the board suggested an amendment, it was not necessary for tbe Government to act on it. He did not think the best could be secured from the board if it were stripped of all power. He thought the attempt to whittle down the responsibility of the board was not m the best interests of the board. The provision would also bring the hoard and the Government into close co-operation. Mr Lae likened the proposal to the M‘Arthur business. He said the shareholders would have control.of tondh older s’ monev amounting to millions. St principle was already condemned in theaP Arthur business, but the Min istev evidently thought the shareholder in this case to he diffarent—tbat they would be philanthropists. The shareholders’ only interest would be to make nrofits for themselves. ■ „ The amendment was defeated by 36 l °Mr Poison moved another amendnient fn <?nb-clause 3 or clause o, aiming delete shareholder capital, and » Provision to place power to amend the schedule in the hands of the GovernoiGencral in Council, instead of only at the request of the board. a Progress was reported, and the H rose at 10.30 p.ni-