CRITICAL DEBATE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19121, 16 September 1936, Page 12

CRITICAL DEBATE

MORTGAGE READJUSTMENT SECOND READING« PASSED LOSSES TO WORKERS (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, liisil l.ii-ii I. The Prime Minister, ihe T.'r. linn. Al. .). Ravage, in t lif* 1 louse of bVprosentaiivos 10-ilfiy, moved that urgency he accorded i!ic passing of l in* second reading of the Mortgagors and Lessees Ifehahilitalion P.ilb

This was challenged, bill on a divi -ion 'being called for, was carried 'b;> 3G‘ votes to 10.

Air. I?. A. Wright (Tml., Wellington Suburbs) said it ■was a question whet her mortgages should be allowed. He said that many widows had invested money in swell mortgages and now their security had in many eases vanished, and they ■were penniless, lie wondered if anything could lie done for them. It was wrong, he contended, to regard mortgagees as wealthy persons; in many eases they were ordinary people who had invested their savings in mortgages. friendly societies in New Zealand would be affected by the Still, and probably many ■of their securities would have depreciated. Insurance companies, too, would be affected, and the majority of the policy holders were working people. Who, under those circumstances, would lend money on property? The superannuation of ministers and retired people in similar circumstances would he seriously affected, and no provision was being made for them. A great deal had been done for the farmer in the past, and apparently the Government intended to go further.

Mr. ('. It. Burnett (Lab., Taurnnga) said the bill was really a type of bankruptcy legislation. Many farmers had reached the position 'whore they could not carry on. and the bill was introduced to put them back on the land and rehabilitate them. The farmer did not worry much whether he had a freehold or not. What he wanted was security of tenure. INEQUITY ALLEGED Sir Alfred Hansom (Nat, Pahiatua) said that a very important point was how far the area was to be a factor in the operations of the bill. Was there a definite provision, more or less hidden, whereby the court would have power to determine whether or not the holding of an individual was larger than lie should be holding, amt that it was desirable that a property should be cut up, and that that should be one of the conditions of settlement with the mortgagee. He claimed that the consideration to be given to mortgagors under the bill should not be greater than the general consideration given to mortgagees. It should be stated by the Minister whether a. portion of the mortgage written off should remain as an unsecured debt. It seemed to be almost a 'fetish with the present Government that there was some obligation on it. to amend all the recent legislation of the last Government. It seemed to be thought that if the Government did not amend the existing law it would not be keeping faith with the electors.

To his mind the general principles ol tin; bill would be most inequitable in operation. The bill would make ■investments in land security most unpopular. . The Prime Minister was not keeping his promise. Mr. Savage had said that so far as the bill was con-

cerned both the mortgagee and the mortgagor would be fairly treated, but under the bill neither would be satisfied. Re would like to see the mortgagee to-day who would say that he was not going to be hurt. It appeared that if the Government kept on as it was doing, before long the .State would be the only landlord. “A MAN ON A EAPM.” Mr. L. L. Cullen (Lab. Hawke’s Bay) said there were many lawyers in the country accustomed to handling land problems, and lie suggested that some of them should lie considered when chairmen of commission were hieing selected. fie claimed that the revaluation provisions in the bill would greatly assist a number of returned soldier settlers and rid them of the burden of debt they had been carrying for years.

JThe lE. Hon. ,T. G. Coates (Nat. Kaipara) said lie would like to find out; just where the Government members were standing. At one moment they were appealing for the support; of the farmer, and at the next for the support of the mortgagee. The bill was part of a triangular plan to rehabilitate the farmer. The first side of the triangle was the guaranteed price, but the guaranteed price was lower than the market price. The second side, was the minimum wage Kite, which was less to the man employed in the farming - industry than he could get outside, and now they came to the third side. Mr. Coates said that when the third side of the triangle was examined it was found the fanner was mortgaged .100 per cent. That was all the relief that was given the farmer, The farmer was put .on the basis of a man ou a fanu. The bill made the farmer a peasant, with on other prospect than a reasonable standard of living. The fanner’s position was bettered in no way by the. bill. He asked the Government to describe the difference between a “reasonable standard of Jiving," and “reasonable living expenses," and where, under the bill, was equity being restored to the farmer as the Prime Minister had stated would be done. “BADLY COOKED DINNER."

Mr. Contes asked the Minister of Finance to explain what equity there was in farm land that had boon placed there by the State. He claimed that there was not the slightest inducement for the farmer to continue. He asked if a man went, on to a farm merely for wages. He submitted that a man went on to Ihe land lo cane out a competency for himself and provide a home for his family. It was the slieopfanncr who first felt the shock of (he depression, hut very little was heard about it till the dairy farmer was hit. The bill did nothing to simplify (lie farmer’s position and he thought the position would become increasingly complicated as a result of the bill.

Mr. tf- Barclay (T-ab. Marsdcn) claim oil tlmt the bill, more than any legislation so far passed, would give the farmer the benefit of his efficiency. The farm, he said, would be valued on

the average production of the herd and the farmer would get the equity he was creating.

Mr. ,T. (i. Oobbe (Nat. Oroua) said the farmer to-day did not know where he was, nor did the mortgagee know where ho stood, except that he knew that only part of the money he lent was his. The bill was like a badly cooked dinner; it gave satisfaction neither to the cook nor 1o the diner. The bill would give Parliamentary sanction to the lowering of commercial morality and the Government should consider the effect of its legislation overseas. The bill would n.ot give the expected help to the mortgagor and would, in many cases, merely mean the postponement of the mortgagor’s liabilities. Mr. Goldie also said that the accumulation of money in banks showed that the people were afraid to advance money .on land. ‘ ‘ SOG J A LTHTTO I DUALS”

Mr. H. G. Dickie (Naf. Patoa) said that many farmers who had been under budgetary control had found that they had realised their position from time to time and did not want to come out of it. lie said the living expenses allowed were generous. The bill was greatlv in favour of the stock and

station agents, loan and linnnee companies and banks as against other mortgagees. Mr. W. .1. Poison (Nat. Stratford) said the old Ael might have been improved upon and a definite equity preserved to the mortgagors, but tho old Act did provide for a settling down period and attempted to do justice to both mortgagor and mortgagee. The now bill oufragod a groat many principles that had been looked upon in New Zealand as inviolate. The bill was a short cut to socialistic ideals of Government, which meant, confiscation of things which might, have been preserved.

Air. W. .1. Broad foot (Nat. Waitomo) said the farming industry was not getting a fair deal from the Government. Por years, the farming community had boon robbed of their improvements and they were going to be further despoiled by the present Government. It was time the farming community woke up and realised where the position was leading to. After the Hon. AV. Nash had replied, the second reading was carried on the voices and the House rose.