CORPORATION BILL

Taranaki Daily News, 23 February 1935, Page 5

CORPORATION BILL

COMMITTEE STAGE BEGUN DEBATE ON THE SHORT TITLE. LABOUR CRITICISM OF MEASURE. MINISTERS DEFEND THE POLICY. By Telegraph— Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The committee stage of the Mortgage . Corporation Bill was commenced in the House of Representatives to-day. On the short title Mr. M. J. Savage, Leader of the Opposition, said that members now had an opportunity of getting down to realities and seeing just how the country would be affected by the Bill. The first point to which he took' exception was the definite attempt by the Government to introduce private control into a State institution. Outsiders were going to draw something from the institution before the farmers received anything at all. Mr. W. J. Jordan (Lab., Manukau) asked the Minister of Finance to make a definite statement as to how the Bill would affect the country. The rate of interest should be fixed and the farmer given security of tenure. The Dairy Board recently fixed the price for butter. Mr. A. D. McLeod (Co,, Wairarapa): That was for one week only. Mr. Jordan said that if the price could be fixed for a week it could be fixed for a longer period. - Mr. W. Nash (Lab., Lower Hutt) said it was provided in the Bill that when the- land was being assessed for a loan the corporation should determine the earning capacity of the land. If it did that why could it not also determine the income that should be derived from that farm? Mr. Nash said the Government had taken steps to stultify the progress that had been made by the State Advances Department. The Rt Hon. J. G. Coates said if the State Advances Department were extended to meet all applications the public debt would have to be greatly increased; and they had to be very careful about doing that. The alternative was to set up an organisation to do the work and leave the State free to act in ether directions. “PRICE FIXATION NOT WANTED.” Mr. Coates did not think the majority of farmers wanted price fixation, and with the Dominion’s huge export compared with population anyone who tried it would have a tremendous task. The Dominion had to fit in the existing system with the capacity of a man to pay. The corporation would not be privately controlled and not State controlled, but an amalgamation of both, and a sound structure would be built up on that foundation. He considered they should not have a number of corporations, but one strong organisation that would command public confidence. Mr. A. M. Samuel (Ind., Thames) said the only section of the community which would benefit under the Bill would be the farmers, who could raise money under any. circumstances. If loans were to be assessed on present day values very few farmers would be able to secure a loan to cover the present mortgages. Mr. W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central) alleged that the Government’s action in reducing the purchasing power of the people by £30,000,000 was responsible for the plight of the farmer to-day. ALLEGED CHANGE OF FRONT. Mr. Savage quoted Hansard to show that when ■ the matter of rural credit bonds was before the House the Prime Minister advocated that bonds should be guaranteed by the State and said he did not fear an addition to the public debt. The argument used by Mr. Forbes then was the argument used by the Opposition at the present time. The principle then and now was the same, and he asked the Prime Minister to support the Opposition. Mr. Forbes said that since those carefree days referred to- he had been Mpjr ister of Finance, and he realised that Government-guaranteed bonds added to the public debt and did not add to the confidence of those who were looked to to supply the funds necessary for the corporation. The inclusion} of shareholdw ers was looked to to give some stability and security to the corporation bonds and to give confidence to investors. Mr. Polson asked that borrowers who were to provide £2,500,000 of capital should have some representation on the board. The Bill, he said, wnuld have he effect of keeping money up instead of bringing it down. If the farmers were represented it would be a compromise the farmers would welcome. Mr. Coates said that if a bond was secured at 3i per cent. the. farmer would get money at £4 12s per cent. That included management charges and repayment. He defended the dual management and said he did not know of any cases where it had been a failure. Mr. P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central) said that every step the Government had taken had failed to resuscitate the farmers of the Dominion, and now the Government was taking another leap in the dark. Mr. D. McDougall (Ind., Mataura) said the Government was depriving the peo- . pie of their liberty and throwing responsibility on to boards. He said the Bill would not help the farmer. He made the charge that the Government was doing nothing to keep the farmer on the land. Mr. W. Nash (Lab., Hutt) twitted the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Defence with departing from the policy laid down by Sir Joseph Ward in 1928, when they became Ministers. They were now proposing to do away with the State Advances Department and were betraying the principles on which they were elected in 1928. He said the Reform Party had had no confidence in the State Advances Department since 1912, and he could understand its attitude, but he could not understand the attitude of United Ministers. Progress was reported and the House rose at 5.30 p.m.