MORTGAGE BILL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 67, 21 March 1935, Page 6

MORTGAGE BILL

SECOND READING _— THE BUDGETARY SYSTEM CRITICISM AND DEFENCE ( Per Press Assedatlun. ) i WELLINGTON, March 20. 1 In the House of Representatives this - afternoon the second reading debate on the Rural Mc-rtgagors’ Bill was re suined. Mr. A. E. Jull asked the Minister to withdraw Part Five of the Bill. It would not feme into operation for fi' e years and there was plenty of time to make ihe provisions contained in that part if necessary. That part was Haught with the greatest danger, and he thought it would be a source ot trouble between the mortgagee and mortgager. Mr. W. E. Barnard said he was not at all surprised that some members of the Coalition Party had objections to Part Five of the'Bill, and he congratulated Mr. Jull on voicing his delinite objections to that part. He contended that when the equity clause was withdrawn or amended there was almost nothing left in the Bill. He contended that no farmer would welcome the budgetary system. He said that every man desired independence to tun his own financial affairs. Mr. C. A. WilKinson said the Bill was a step in the right direction, and he congratulated the Minister on try mg to meet the position in a more liberal way than members of the party were evidently willing to go. Never theless, he thought the Bill would still be of vital assistance to the farmer who was in difficulty. The farmers wanted an immediate writing off of lost capital. They also wanted a low rate of interest to tide them over the . present crisis. However, they did not want, to wait for five years. He suggested that, ihe term of budgetary control should be reduced to two years. The term “peonage” had been used during the debate. He believed that many farmers were in that state touav and the BUI would assist them. The Bill also gave them security of tenure and enabled them to remain on their farms in the hope that better rimes would come along. He hoped the Government would accept reasonable amendments in committee. He suggested that the farmers should be provided with legal advice free of charge in the preparation of cases for the Court or Commission. The debate at this stage was interrupted. The Hon. G. W. Forbes moved a motion placing on record the recognition of the high services rendered to New Zealand by Mr. J. R. Corrigan, a former member of the House, and tendering sympathy to the widow. The motion was carried and t-he House adjourned till 7.30 p.m. as 11 mark of respect. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr. W. P. Endean said the Bill was absolute!? necessary in the interests of the farmer. What was necessary m New Zealand was tha-t the mortgagor should be freed from worry so that he •ould then devote himself to the development of his farm. If a competent organisation was appointed the inefficient farmer who had no chance of succeeding would be quietly put ofl the land and someone else put in his | stead. Dealing with the equity clause. | he said that, provision would not stand . any test. It was absolutely opposed i to' al! legal principles. He agreed with Mr. Wilkinson that the peno-i of five vears of budgetary control | should be substantially cut down. Be. thought the mortgagee should have] some right to take action. At th* I same time, he congratulated the Gov . e-nment taking a bold step. Farmers and Sobstuff. Mr. R. A. Wright said there waj a great deal of sobstuff about the farmers’ difficulties. Jn many cases the farmers had bought the land with their eyes open at too high r price, and when they got into difficulties the noo-farmers were expected to come to their aid. Mr. Wright added that if « businessman asked for assistance he would be sent to a charitable institution. The Bill had staggered the business community, which was wanting to know what the Government was going to do next. All the Bill would do would be to keep up the artificial price of land. Mr. T. Webb asked what provision the Bill was going to make for the 50,000 farmers who were on the verge of bankrupt?. 74.000 unemployed workers and 40.000 to 50.000 business men who were in difficulties. Mr. A. Stuart said he could see noth , ing wrong with the budgetary system, a.s a man would be able to live com- ' fortably. The farmer would ha\p, plenty of milk, butter and other food- ' stuffs. Hr was much better off than ' fhe man in the city. He thought, Ihe! farmers should be pleased to accept the nudgetary system. He thought the = ump would eventually do a great deal of good, as many farmers had gone on the land with insufficient capital. The Bill would go a long way to remedy the position. Mr. X. J. Stallworthy said that so f«- as the general interests of farmers, particularly dairy farmers, were concerned, they were never more n isrepresented than they’ were to-day. Tim Bill w as merely a pretence at doing something for the farmer. He sugg’stcd that the Prime Minister should abandon his proposed trip to England and should immediately ask for a dis solution of Parliament in order to seek a mandate from the people. Mr. ]). W. Coleman said the farmers under the Bill would be nothing more than glorified caretakers, and the treatment meted out to the unem i ployed would be meted out. to the farmer? under budgetary control. Mr. F. Lye said the mortgagees had made substantial contributions in the past to the mortgagors, and he thought the mortgagors were to be congratulated on the way they had met those carrying on the primary industries of the Dominion, The Bill was a genuine attempt to have a national stocktaking. Capital losses had taken place and an adjustment had to be made. He believed that both parties to the contract should make equal sacrifices. Machinery was set up in the Bill to bring them together before the mortgage adjustment commissions, and he thought both mortgagors and mortgagees would benefit from the probationary period. The debate was adjourned and the House rose ar. 11.30 p.m.