FRIENDLY CRITIC

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22431, 29 May 1936, Page 13

FRIENDLY CRITIC

MR. HAMILTON'S VIEWS

NOT OPPOSED TO BILL LIMITATIONS ADVOCATED "SOME RETROGRADE STEPS" [by telegraph—special reporter] WELLINGTON. Thursday The advantages of a combination of State and private enterprise were stressed by the Hon. A. Hamilton (Opposition Wallace) during the second reading debate on the State Advances Corporation Bill in the House of Representatives to-night. There was no doubt, said Mr Hamilton, that the State Advances Department had been very successful, but more so as an institution for the lending of money for rural development. However, that stage had passed and there was now very little of that class of lending. The department, said Mr. Hamilton, had not been so successful when it. had large sums of money for lending it a high rate of interest, ft also became very competitive with other lending institutions. That was not intended. Tho development idea of ihe State Advances Office bail passed, and it had become a huge lending institution. Large loans to borrowers was not the function of the State. The Mortgage Corporation was a national institution and, although it was separate from the State, it was not a private institution. Tho idea behind the corporation was to give service to the mortgagors and not to make it a profitmaking institution. Dangers Foreseen "There are dangers in a State department having big lending powers," added Mr. Hamilton. "Although much criticism has been levelled at tho system of boards, I believe it is a good one. The separation of some of our institutions from politics is advisable. In a sense the State had fairly good control of the Mortgage .Corporation. The principle behind the corporation was to give the cheapest money and to have the soundest management, and I believe that can bo obtained through a combination of State and private enterprise."

Mr. Hamilton said lie believed that, with good control, the present system would compare favourably with the system to which the Minister was reverting. At the same time he wotdd not say the Opposition was opposed to the biil. It was not advisable for the State to become too large a mortgagee, because once that happened complications were likely to set in. Mortgagors could become a force in a democratic countrv.

Mr. Hamilton complimented the Minister on the change of name in the corjK>ration and thought it perhaps <1 better one than that of the Mortgage Corporation. The State Advances Department had pleasant associations with New Zealand. The cancellation of the private capital was an important change, but it was not vital. Nevertheless, the presence of >nrivate capital inspired confidence. The Minister had treated shareholders quite liberally. Limit to Borrowing The opinion that it was prudent to set a limit 011 borrowing powers was expressed by Mr. Hamilton. "There was a limit to the borrowing powers of the Mortgage Corporation." he said, "but that is now taken off and the sky is the limit. To have 110 fixed relationship between the borrowing powers and reserves and capital is dangerous." Mr. Hamilton also stressed the advisability of a limit on lending powers. Although loans up to 100 per cent mirrht he justified for housing, it was better that a man's life insurance nolicv should be permanently secured for his wife and family rather than usinrr it as a collateral security.

"The Opposition is not criticising the hill ver" seriously," concluded Mr. Hamilton. "1 believe some parts of the bill are a retrograde ste" and that it would be bettor tn trv out the Mortgage Corporation for a further term, rather tlmn unset it so early in its career. The Stnte Advances Denart"<eiit lias served 'ts dnv and fener.ition. but liecaus" l it was o-ood '-cars aso that is not to sav it is food now "

PLANS FOR COLLEGE ARCHITECT SEEKS FEES SUPPORT FOR PETITION [BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON. Thursday A recommedation that the payment of fees allegedly duo to Mr. John Mitchell, architect, of Rotorun. in connection with the design and erection of the Seddon Memorial Technical College at Auckland should receive mostfavourable consideration from the Government was contained in a report from the Education Committee of the House of Representatives, presented in the House t.o-dnv by the chairman of the committee, Mr. C. L. Carr (Government —Timaru). Mr. Mitchell had petitioned Parliament for the payment of £525 which lie stated to be the balance of architect's foes due to him for work on tho college building. The committee in making its recommendation stated that, in its opinion, the basis of the compensation should be the commission on the difference between the amount of the tender accepted aqd the amount of the lowest tender for the larger building scheme. Mr. A. F. Concur (Government — Rutorua) said that Mr. Mitchell had prepared plans for the building as far back as 190 G. At first only part of the building was erected and Mr. Mitchell received a fee in proportion to the part of his plans actually carried out. Subsequently Mr. Mitchell's plans were used for additional buildings, but no further architect's fees were paid. The report was tabled and tho petition referred to the Government for most favourable consideration.