FARM LEGISLATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22519, 13 March 1935, Page 5

FARM LEGISLATION

RURAL MORTGAGORS' BILL QUESTIONS AND CRITIQSM FIRST READING CARRIED (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, March 12. The interest that had been aroused by the Rural Mortgagors Final Adjustment Bill -was reflected in the fact that no sooner was it introduced in the House of Representatives to-day than the Minister of Finance (Mr J. G. Coates) was assailed with Questions and criticism from members of the Labour Party and the cross-benches. The suggestion was made by Mr A. J. Stallworthy (Eden) that the Bill should be submitted to a committee of the House, but he wa s assured by the Minister that it was not proposed to take that course. It was a Bill that deserved the attention of the committee as a whole. The fact that the Court of Equity would have power to refuse a stay-order to any farmer whom it considered inefficient was commented on by Mr A. M. Samuel (Thames), who asked the Minister how he was going to definie the word "inefficient." How would it be possible to decide who was efficient and who was inefficient? If a farmer was to receive consideration under the Bill because he was efficient, why "would it be necessary to appoint a supervisor to see that he was carrying out his work properly? Mr F. Langstone (Waimarino), declared that the farmers' greatest need today was increased income, and so tar as he could see there was nothing in the Bill to help him to secure that- income. . Mr J. A. Lee (Grey Lynn) expressed the opinion that the operation of the provisions of the Bill would practically amount to a receivership of the farmers business, consequently reducing the latter to a state of serfdom.. He described the Bill as another Government makeshift. Objection to the fact that all the details of the working of farms would be handed over to the control of a supervisor was taken by Mr A. S. Richards (Roskill), who stated that the Bill would provide no security for the farmer. Mr Stallworthy said he presumed that farm supervisors would be drawn from three sections of the community—persons engaged in stock and station agency work, accountants, and members of the legal profession. There was a danger, he said, that persons who were concerned almost solely with figures would be unsympathetic to certain aspects of farming life, and he urged that when these positions were being filled there should be a greater mixture of the human element. In the course of his reply, the Minister said there had been an expressed desire that the third reading of the Mortgage Corporation Bill should not be taken until the present Bill had been introduced, and he considered that the request had been complied with. In answer to a question, he stated that the second reading of the Rural Mortgagors Final Adjustment Bill would not be proceeded with before to-morrow.

Replying to Mr Samuel, the Minister said the Court of Equity was empowered to refuse a stay-order to any farmer who was not considered deserving of such consideration, who had committed a bread) of his mortgage covenant, or whose general conduct of his farm was not satisfactory. A good deal was left to the mortgage adjustment commissions, which would be able to engage additional talent where necessary.

Mr W. J. Poison (Stratford): l s ft in the power of the commission to exclude any farmer it does not consider competent? Mr Coates: Yes. Mr Poison: Then why have supervisors?

Continuing, Mr Coates said the object of the Bill was. to clear up many of the difficulties that existed to-day and to do so in a manner that would be fair to all the parties concerned. It was desired to give the farmer some incentive to eel ahead with his work, and he thought the Bill provided that incentive. The Bill was read a first time.