MORTGAGE CORPORATION

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 February 1935, Page 7

MORTGAGE CORPORATION

SECOND READING DEBATE

SHORT TITLE PASSED [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, February 26. In the House of Representatives, today, the second reading debate on the Mortgage Corporation Bill was resumed. Mr. Savage said that he was going to ask the House to reject the short title, because the bill proposed to give private control power to supersede the activities of the State. He asked the Government to give anv evidence of support for the bill outside the House. The Coalition Government had nothing to show but poverty and distress. The State Advances Department was to be destroyed, and .he knew the people did not want that. Mr. Coates said that Mr. Savage had stated nobody wanted the Bill. If that referred to stock and station' agents and Law Societies, that might be so, and the Press ,too, was entitled to its own opinion. He and the Government did not agree with the Press regarding that Bill. He was convinced that the Bill would give cheap money to those who desired to take advantage of it, but was it advisable or wise that the State should borrow all the money to reorganise the system of finance, to assist the agricultural community? He denied that the Government was antagonistic to the State Advances Department. He believed that much outside criticism was misinformed or interested. He considered that, it was not wise that the State should accept responsibility for local body rates, as it would cost at least £500,000 per year. It was unreasonable to expect the State to accept that responsibility. The Corporation would not be exempt from rates when it adjusted the present Crown mortgages. He considered that the position would largely be adjusted within two years, and that the position would be-cleaned up in about five years. Mr. Samuel said that the majority of the members of the House were opposed to shareholder capital in the ‘.Corporation, yet the Bill, as the Minister of Finance had stated, was going through. Ho appealed to the Minister to accept some of the amendments that he moved in committee, and to make the .scheme workable. Mr. Polson said that the farmers would prefer no Bill at all, rather than the present measure, but would prefer the extension of the Mortgage Commission’s activities. Farmers sought the abolition of the personal covenant, and wero opposed to share capital. Mr. Ansell suggested that a sliding scale of amortisation payments should be adopted, so that when times were good tho farmer could reduce his liability. Her considered that some provision should be made to prevent land speculation and land aggregation. Mr. Coates said that the Bill provided for repayment of a loan before a sale took place. Mr. Ansell: So long as land speculation is prevented. I am satisfied. Mr. McKeen urged that a scheme should be established to provide for th? building of houses for those who now were not able to secure .them, and who had to live in rooms. Mi. McKeen said that the Bill would crucify the State Advances Department. which had assisted many people to obtain their own homes. The Bill was also the thin edge of the wedge to smash tho Public Trust Office. Mr. Veitch moved, as an amendment, that tho title should be altered to read tho “State Advances Amendment Act. Ho said that his reason was that, under the heading he proposed, all that was necessary could be done for the primary producers of the country in the matter of urgently meeting their present needs. The Chairman (Mr. J. A. Nash) said that he would have to refuse to accept the amendment, as it was foreign to the Bill. He suggested that Mr Veitch could achieve tho same object bv moving to report progress. ' Mr. Veitch then moved to report pi ogress, with the object of obtaining the speaker’s ruling, but this was defeated bv 37 votes to 26. The short title was passed by votes to 25, and progress was reported.