MORTGAGE ADJUSTMENTS

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 29 March 1935, Page 9

MORTGAGE ADJUSTMENTS

HOUSE PASSES MEASURE LABOUR CONTINUES CRITICISM GUARANTEED PRICES ADVOCATED (By TVifttfro pt»—rrees AbeocUUoqo WELLINGTON, March 28. The Rural Mortgagors’ Final Adjustment Bill was recommitted in the House of Representatives to-day to enable further amendment to be introduced.

The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates explained that the amendments were of a verbal nature.

Mr A. Harris (Ind., Waitemata) challenged the payment of compensation to a farmer mortgagor which, lie held, was wrong in principle and inequitable. He contended that if a farmer was to receive any compensation it should not come from the mortgagee, who had always lost heai ily, but if compensation was to be paid it should come from the Crown. Mr H. M. Rusliworth and other members claimed that the farmei who had been receiving hare living expenses for a period of years should receive compensation for the assets he had maintained. If he had not maintained any assets he would not receive any compensation. Compensation could be regarded as deferred wages. Mr F. Langstonc (Labour, .Waimarino) said the provision for the payment of compensation was really a modification of the original clause dealing with equities, and he was sorry that the clause had been dropped. He said the mortgagee began to lose everything and the mortgagor should be considered as well as the mort- ° MV Rusliworth moved an amendment to substitute for the word compensation the words “in lieu of deferred wages.” The amendment was lost on the voices and the provision for the payment of compensation was carried by 61 votes to five, the “noes” being Messrs Harris, Burnett, Stewart, Veitch and Wright. Mr Coates’ amendments were then agreed to. On the third reading of the Bill I urgency was accorded.

‘‘PURELY DEFLATIONARY’ ’ Messrs Savage and Lee said the Bill djd not conserve the interests of the farmer; all it had done was to enable the farmer to continue in bankruptcy almost in perpetuity. It had not solved the problem of the mortgagee. Its effect was purely deflationary and would tie up such sums as were invested in mortgages and would restrict the flow of purchasing power. The Government had dealt another blow at the personal welfare of the country. Labour’s policy was to give the farmer an income based on real goods. Guaranteed prices would mean an average return for labour expended and would stabilise the value of land I over a period; of year.s- By extra labour the farmer could enhance his j income, but the present Bill would not do that.

The Hon. A. E. Ransom contended that the Opposition viewed the position purely from a party standpoint and not from the viewpoint of the general welfare of the Dominion. Labour had only one solution for the farmers problem, and that was to give him a higher price for his goods than they were worth on the world parity. He criticised the Labour Party for opposing the Bill which, he claimed, would assist the struggling farmer. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) said that from start to finish the provisions of the Bill contained the greatest insult that could be offered to the farmers of New Zealand or any other country. All that 1 the Bill was calculated to do was to jturn the farmers into serfs. The farmer was not responsible for the lack of returns; the Government was re--1 sponsible for it, having brought it about by its deflation policy. The Bill ' would not help the farmer; it merely ! provided for the introduction of a budgetary system which would place the farmer on the same level as the stock on his farm.

, Mr H. Atmore (Ind., Nelson) said the Government should not delude itself that better prices were in view. The farmers’ problem lay in* New Zealand and the solution was alongside them. He said the Government’s policy of taxation was gradually turning the taxpayer into an employee instead of allowing the industry to be the employer. Mr Langstone said the Bill would not rehabilitate one farmer in New Zealand; it would not increase his income, and it was only income, of which the farmer was short.

TRADESMAN’S POSITION Mr Veitch said he wondered how the tradesman who had strained his own credit to supply farmers with goods would fare under the Bill. Mr T. D. Burnett (Co., Temuka) said the Bill would prevent the flow of fresh money to land mortgages. He thought the Government would have been well advised to have left the matter for mature consideration of the House and the people for a further term of three or four months, and then come back with fresh views and finally pass a comprehensive measure. As it was, the Bill was not a national measure, but dealt only with the rural tragedy. For that reason he could not support the measure, and if it meant he was to lose caste with his farmer friends he did not care “a twopenny dump.” Mr J. O’Brien (Lab., Westland) said he regretted the Bill would not benefit the farmer, but would put him in penal servitude for five years. At the end of that period lie would walk off his farm.

Mr Harris said tlic effect of the Bill would be. to maintain high land values. He understood the clause dealing wtili equities was to be dropped altogether, and therefore he voted for the second reading, but now lie found the same proposal, somewhat modified, was contained in the amendments. He objected to the Bill because it was sectional and not national, and lie did not believe the farmer was any worse off than the man in the city. air D. G .Sullivan said that on behalf of the local bodies lie protested against the treatment meted out to those bodies regarding rates. He contended that no practical provision had been made for the local bodies, to recover rates. Mr Coates, in reply, said he' would like the Labour Party to enumerate seriatim the steps it would take to introduce guaranteed prices. He believed the present system could be made to work, and lie did not know the consequences of any new-fangled scheme. f The third reading was passed by 30 votes to 21 and the House rose at 1.40 a.m. till Tuesday.