TITLE PASSED

Taranaki Daily News, 27 February 1935, Page 9

TITLE PASSED

CORPORATION BILL DEFEAT OF OPPOSITION 'AMENDMENT REJECTED DIVISION IN COMMITTEE By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. When the committee stage of the Mortgage Corporation Bill was resumed in the House of Representatives to-day Mr. M. J. Savage (Leader of the Opposition) said he was going to ask the House to reject the short title because the Bill proposed to give private control and power to supersede the activities of the State. Mr. Savage added that the Bill destroyed the foundation of State revenues which hitherto had been used for the purpose of borrowing money to be used by the State Advances Department. He asked the Government to give any evidence of support for the Bill outside the House. The Coalition Government had nothing to show but poverty and distress, he said. The State Advances Department was to be destroyed, and he knew the people did not want that. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates said Mr. Savage had stated nobody wanted the Bill. If that referred to stock and station agents and law societies that might be so, and the. Press, too, was entitled to its own opinion. He and the Government did not agree with a portion of the Press' regarding the Bill. As for the farmers, he did not agree with Mr. Polson’s explanation of the Bill to the farmers, but he was convinced the Bill would give cheap money to those who desired, to. take advantage of it. But was it advisable or wise that the State should borrow all the money to reorganise the system of finance to assist the agricultural community? He denied that the Government was antagonistic to the State Advances Department. _ He believed much of the outside criticism was misinformed or interested. He considered it was not wise that the State should accept responsibility for local body rates as it would cost at least half a million pounds a year, added Mr. Coates. It was unreasonable to expect the State to accept that responsibility. The corporation would not be exempt from, rates when it adjusted present Crown mortgages. ’He considered the position would largely be adjusted within two years, and that the position would be cleaned up in about five years. SHAREHOLDER CAPITAL. Mr. A. M. Samuel (Independent, Thames) said the majority of members of the House were opposed to shareholder capital in the corporation, yet the Bill, as the Minister of Finance had stated, was going through. The farmers themselves did not want the 'Bill because they knew it was not going to assist them. He therefore appealed to the Minister to accept some of the amendments that would be moved in committee and make the scheme workable. Mr. W. J. Polson (Coalition, Stratford) said the farmers would prefer no Bill at all rather than the present measure. They would prefer an extension of the mortgage commissions’ activities. Farmers sought the abolition of the personal covenant and'were opposed to share capital. He. believed the Minister was mistaken if he thought the farmers were supporting him. Mr. A. E. Ansell (Coalition, Chalmers) suggested a sliding scale of amortisation payments should be adopted so that when times were good the farmer could reduce his liability. He did not agree with the Minister that 1 per cent, was a reasonable charge for management, etc. He thought it should not be more than a half of one per cent. He also considered some provision should be made to prevent land speculation and land aggregation. • Mr., Coates in reply said the Bill provided for the repayment of the loan before a sale took place. Mr. Ansell: As long as land speculation is prevented I will be satisfied. Mr. R. McKeen (Labour, Wellington South) urged that a scheme should be established to provide for the building of houses for those who were now not able to secure houses and who had to live in rooms. OPPOSITION OUTVOTED. Mr. McKeen fiaid the Bill would crucify the State Advances Department, which had assisted many people to obtain their own homes. The Bill, he alleged, was the thin edge of the wedge to smash the Public Trust Office. Mr. W. A. Veitch (Independent, Wanganui) contended that the provisions of the Bill were so far-reaching that it should not be passed until the people had been consulted at a general election. .

Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) said it was wrong that the present Bill should be considered further ‘’until a Bill which the House had been informed was coming down was before the House.

Mr. Veitch moved as an amendment that the title should be altered to read. “State Advances Amendment Act.” He said his reason was that under the heading he proposed all that was necessary' to be done for the primary producers in a matter of urgently meeting their present needs could be done under the first of the Bill.

The Chairman of Committees (Mr. J. A. Nash) said he would have to refuse to accept the amendment as it was foreign to the Bill. He suggested Mr. Veitch could achieve the same object by moving to report progress. Mr. Fraser, speaking to a point of order, said the Bill dealt with the State Advances Department. It proposed to wipe the department out and hand its responsibilities, liabilities and assets to the proposed corporation, and he submitted the question of State Advances was very pertinent to the Bill.

Mr. Coates said the amendment was a direct negative. Mr. Veitch then moved to report progress with the object of’ obtaining the Speaker’s ruling, but this was defeated by 37 votes to 26 and the short title was passed by 38 votes to 25. Progress was reported and the House rose at 10.30.