MORTGAGE CORPORATION

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 7 March 1935, Page 7

MORTGAGE CORPORATION

LABOUR’S OPPOSITION SHAREHOLDER CAPITAL ATTACKED APPOINTMENT OF DIRIEOTORS. (By Telegrapn—Frees Association.! WELLINGTON, March 6. Consideration of the Mortgage Cor-

poration Bill in committee was resumed in the House of Representatives to-day. Discussion at first concerned the clause dealing with the liability of the corporation for the payment of local body rates. Mr. F. Langstone (Lab., Waimal’iuo) said that if the Minister of Finance repudiated the payment of rates because the cost would be too great, everybody else could repudiate it. The Government had received valuable services from the public bodies and there should be a quid pro quo. Considerable discussion arose over tho point whether the clause coukl be amended, and several points of order were raised. Mr. Coates held that the clause was a money clause and could not therefore be amended, but other members, particularly on the Opposition and cross-benches, held that an amendment would place no liability c.u tlie State. Mr P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central) moved an amendment to strike out sub-clause 2 with the idea of obtaining the Speaker’s ruling, but after further discussion the amendment was not pressed. Mr. M. J. Savage (Leader of the Opposition) said the corporation would be in exactly the same position as any firm or .individual and should be responsible for rates. He therefore asked the House to vote against the whole clause. Mr. H. G-. Dickie (Co., Patea'l, said local bodies in his electorate had asked him to vote against the clause, but there was more than arrears of rates involved.

“LOYALTY TO COUNTRY” Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) : There is loyalty to party. Mr. Dickie: There is loyalty .to country as well. He added that he intended to vote with the Government on tho clause as under the Bill that was to follow- provision would be made for the payment of rates though local bodies might have to make a little concession.

Mr. W. J: Poison (Co., Stratford) contended that the Bill would, add to the difficulties of farmers it was intended to assist. Ho congratulated the Minister upon the wording of the clause because a- member had either to vote against something that would assist the local bodies or recognise the right of the State not to pay rates. Mr. Coates said Mr. Poison had attacked the Bill in all parts of tlio country and had not lent a helping hand at all. Yet if the Bill turned out to be the success the Government anticipated it would, Mr. Poison would be the first one to cry from the housetops, “See what I have clone for yon !’’ The position of certain local bodies in regard to the payment of rates would be a matter the Government would take into very serious consideration when the next Budget was being prepared. Mr. Poison said be had opposed the Bill even before it came before the House and he had told the Prime Minister so on more than one ' occasion. He had made his position perfectly clear to the House and to the country. Clause' 47 was passed by 37 votes to 31. The committee then reverted to clause 11, which had been hold over.

‘‘NOT NECESSARY’- ’’ Mr. Savage said the corporation was not necessary. . As the corporation made profits it had. power to increase the capital, so that all. profits would go to the benefit of the private shareholder and not. to the borrower. He therefore, asked the House to oppose t)ie clause. Mr. Forbes said no Minister of Finance would allow an increase in the capital unless it would bo in the interest of the bondholders. He could see no reason for Mr. Savage’s apprehension.

Mr. Fraser said the matter of an increase in. capital was* removed outside the control .cf Parliament altogether. Ho claimed that as the provisions, of the Bill became known an .increasing number of member's of tlie House must have opposed the measure, and as was well known, it did not have a friend outside the House. If the House had a free vote there was no doubt what would happen. Mr. H. M. Rush worth (Country, Bav of Islands) said he understood'the clause was held over because no provision was made for the Government to participate in any increase in capital. At present the Government’s share was limited to -500,000 .shares. No amendment was brought down and he wanted to know what the position was. Mr. Langstone characterised the clause as pernicious. He said flic Bank of New Zealand could not increase its capital without the consent of Parliament,, but that was not needed as far as the corporation was concerned. Mr. AV. A. Veitch (Tnd., Wanganui) said that when the clause was before the committee previously he moved an amendment to the effect- that the capital eoiild not be- increased without the approval of Parliament, but it was lost. The position now was that any new shares would have to go to the shareholders as the Government had no power to purchase any. He considered there should he no power to increase the capital, but if there was power the Government should be able to take half the new shares.

Mr. Armstrong said that people would put money into the corporation to extract profits, and only the persons from whom profits could he extracted were the mortgagors—the farmers of the Dominion.

Mr J. A. Lee (Lab.. Grey Lynn) said

that although the corporation was not to be a State institution tlie State was to be responsible for any liabilities incurred while the shareholders took the profits! Many members of the Government had objected to private shareholders, but some strong, unseen hand had. influenced them. Mr. Coates said it was correct that the clause w*s postponed to enable something to be added to it j Some members desired to retain a 50-50 basis and he was .prepared te offer, if members allowed the clause to go through in its present form, when it came back from “another place”— Mr. W. Nash: What happens if it never coines back? Air. Coates said the Bill must come back, and he wuld give an undertaking when it did that an amendment would be introduced by Governor-Gen-eral’s message. It was because a Gov-ernor-General’s message was necessary that an amendment could not be made that niglit. He added that it did not matter what happened, if they wanted money they would have to go to Parliament for authority to raise it. Air. Coates said an easier way of overcoming the objections was to withdraw the clause with a proviso that a new clause would be substituted. The Rlev. Clyde Carr, (Lab., Tiniaru) said lie did not want to have a repetition of a previous happening, when on another measure an assurance was given that an amendment would be made in “another place” and it was then found that an amendment could not be made. Air. Savage moved that clause IT be deleted and this was carried. A now clause giving power to appoint associate directors was introduced. Air. Savage sought particulars of the working of the corporation. Air. Coates said the appointment of associate directors would expedite the working of the corporation as the directors concerned would be able to advise the board when an application was before it. He could not say at present how many would bo appointed. The clause was adopted.

The schedule to the Bill was agreed to with a number of machinery amendments. and the Bill was reported with amendments. The division list on clause -IT was as follows: Ayes. Ansell, Bitcliener, Bodkin, Broadfoot, Burnett, Campbell, Clinkard, Coates, Cobble, Connolly, Dickie, Endean, Field, Forbes, Hamilton, Hardest, Hawke, Healy, -Hen-are, Holland, Holyoake, Kyle, Lr.nklater, Lye, McLeod, McSkimming, Macmillan, AlacPherson, J. N. Massey, Murdoch, Reid, Smith, Downie Stewart, A. Stuart, Te Tcnio, Williams, Young. Noes. Armstrong, Atmore, Barnard, Carr, Coleman, Fraser, Howard, Jones, Jordan, Jull, Langstone, Lee, MrDougal.l, Afcj£ccn, Mason, Munro, W. Nash, O'Brien, 'Parry, Poison, Richards; Rii&hwoirtih, Samuel, Savage, Schranim, Semple, Siillhan, Veitoh, Webb, Wilkin ton, Mri£ht.

and sickness insurance and the committee was not considering unemployment. That a national health insurance scheme was desirable. That such scheme should be compulsory. That it should apply to all in receipt of salaries or wages within the limit prescribed between the ages of 1G and Go.

That it should provide a completo medical service and should include general practitioner service, hospital benefit, consultant and specialist services, maternity benefit, dental benefit, home nursing and such other types of medical care as seemed desirable. That it should include dependents of those insured. . That the scheme should be a contributory. one and /that contributions should be at a rate which was regarded as suitable from an actuarial point of view. That the payment of doctors should be at a flat rate so far as general practitioner service was concerned and according to work done for specialist and consultative services.

That an insurance scheme could be fitted into the existing machinery and that tho Health Department and hospital boards are suitable agencies partly or wholly to represent the central Government and local insurance committees.

The conference' resolved that the report he forwarded to the Government and legislation passed to give effect to it sought.