MORTGAGE CORPORATION

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 27 February 1935, Page 9

MORTGAGE CORPORATION

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE LABOUR LEADER’S ATTACK AIR. COATES DEFENDS BILL.

(By Telegra pu— -Trues Association.J WELLINGTON, Feb. 26. When the committee stage of the Mortgage Corporation Bill was resumed in the House of Representatives today Mr. M. J. Savage, (Loader of the Opposition), said lie was going to ask the House to reject the short title because thd Bill proposed to give private control and power to supersede the activities of the State. Mr. Savage added that the Bill destroyed the foundation of State revenues which hitherto had been used for the purpose of borrowing money to bo used by the State Advances Department. ITe asked tho Government to give anv evidence of -support for the Bill outside the House. The Coalition Government had nothing to show hut poverty and distress, he said. The State Advances' Department was to he destroyed and be knew the people did not want that. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates said Mr. Savage had stated nobody wanted the Bill. If that referred to stock and station agents and law societies that might he so. and the Press, too, was entitled to its own opinion. He and the Government did not agree with a portion of the Press regarding the Bill. As for the farmers, he did not agree with Air. Poison’s explanation of the Bill to, the farmers, but he was. convinced 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 tho State Advances Department. He believed much of the outside criticism was misinformed or interested. He considered it was not wise that the State should accept responsibility for local body rates as it would cost at least half a million pounds a year, added Air. Coates. It was unreasonable to expect the State to accept that responsibility." The corporation would not ho exempt from rates when it adjusted present Crown mortgages. He considered tho position would largely Fe adjusted within two years, and that the position would be cleaned up in hhout five years. APPEAL TO MINISTER.

Air. A. AI. Samuel (Independent, Thames) .said the majority of members in the House were opposed to shareholder capital in tho corporation, jet the Bill, as the Minister of Finance had stated, was going through. The farmers themselves did not want the Bill because they knew it was not going to assist them. He therefore appealed to tho Minister to accept some of the amendments that would be moved in committee and make the scheme workable.

Air. W. J. Poison (Coalition, Stratford) said the farmers would prefer no Bill at al.l rather than the present measure. They would prefer an extension of the mortgage commissions’ activities. Farmers sought the abolition of the personal covenant and wore opposed to share capital. He believed the Minister was mistaken if he thought the- farmers were supporting him.

Air. A. E. Ansell. (Co. Chalmers), suggested' a sliding seale of amortisation payments should be adopted so that when times were good the farmer could reduce iiis liability. He did not agree with the Minister that 1 per cent, was a reasonable charge for management, etc He thought it should not be more than a half of one per cent. He also considered some provision should be made to prevent land speculation and land aggiecatiou.

Air. Coates, in reply, said the Bill provided for the repayment of the loan before the sale took place. Mr. Ansell: As long as land speculation i* prevented I will be satisfied.

AL*. R. AlcKoen (Labour. Wellington South') urged that a scheme should be established to provide for the building of houses for those who wore now not able to secure houses and who had to live in rooms.

“CRUCIFY DEPARTMENT”

Air. AlcKeeu said the Bill would crucify the State Advances Department, which had assisted many people to obtain their own homes. The Bill, he alleged, was the thin edge of the wedge to smash the. Public Trust Office. Air. W. A. Veitch (Independent, Wanganui), contended that the provisions of the Bill were so far-reaching that it should not be passed until the people had been consulted at a geneial election.

All*. H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch. East)) . said it was wrong that the present Bill should be considered further until a Bill which the House had been informed was coming down was before tho House. Air. Veitch moved as an amendment that the title should be altered to read “State Advances Amendment Act.” He said his reason was that under the heading ho. proposed all that was necessary to be done for the primary producers in a matter of urgently meeting tlieir present needs could be done under the first of the Bill.

Tho Chairman of Committees (Air J. A. Nash) said he would have to refuse to accept the amendment as it vas foreign to the Bill. He. suggested All*. Veitch could achieve tho same obeet by moving to . report progress. AH. Fraser, speakinjg to a point of older, said tbe Bill dealt with the State Advances Department. It was proposed to wipe the department out and hand its responsibilities, liabilities and ussets to the proposed corporation, and be submitted the question of State Advances was verv pertinent to the. Bill. Mr. Coates said the amendment was a direct negative. Air. Veitch tho amoved to report progress with the object of obtaining the Speaker’s ruling, but this was defeated by 37 votes to 2(5 and thei short title was passed by 33 votes to 20. Progress was reported and the House rose at 10.30.

FARMERS’ UNION VIEWS

FOUR AMENDMENTS ADVOCATED

DUNEDIN. Feb. 26

Tho Farmers’ Union, has adopted the report of its sub committee on the

Mortgage Corporation proposals, staling : (1) The scheme would he useless if it meant that the farmer would pay more than 4J per cent., including amortisation.

(2) That it was preferable to launch the corporation without share capital, and giving bondholders representation on the directorate.

(3 That there should bo a fixed period for tlio redemption of bonds which j should be issued so as not to mature all together. (4) That loans be not transferable in the event of property being sold. Regarding the rehabilitation pro., posals, the principle of decentralised handling was endorsed. It was considered inequitable that all farmers should be given 20 per cent, equity in the final adjustment, it being jecommended that each case bo considered on its merits,