PARLIAMENT

Evening Star, Issue 22445, 16 September 1936, Page 6

PARLIAMENT

THE MORTGAGE BILL SECOND READING PASSED MANY OPPOSITION CRITICS SHORT CUTS TO SOCIALISM [Pie United Press Association-! WELLINGTON, September 15. The House met at 2.30 p.ra. Mr Roy was granted two days leave of absence, and Mr Tan Henare seven days, both on account of illness. Mr Rroadfoot asked the Prime Minister if lie would advise the House what steps he proposed to take to eliminate the stop work ( meetings which were occurring in New Zealand while disputes were being negotiated between employers and employees? Would he say what constitutional means for settling disputes would be utilised in future? . . Mr Savage said the industrial legislation of the present Government had effected radical changes in the relationship between workers and employers, and misunderstandings regarding interpretations were bound _ to occur during the period of transition. Considering the multiplicity ox occupations and industries affected, however, the Government took satisfaction in the fact that the new era had been entered upon with only a few minor disputes, and with no serious dislocation of industry. The amendments made to the I.C. and A. Act and- to the ■ Factories Act had provided machinery for more rapid settlement of disnutes by constitutional means than previously existed. The Government was watching the position closely, and if, after making due allowance for the exceptional circumstances which prevail during the present period of readjustment, it appeared that still further legislation was necessary to encourage settlements by constitutional means, consideration would bo given, to the steps necessary to achieve this. DECEASED LEGISLATORS. Mr Savage moved that the House record its high sense of the faithful service rendered to New Zealand by the late Richard Moore, and tender its sincere sympathy to the relatives. Mr Savage referred to Mr Moores services. He said members would agree that Mr Moore was a. lovable character, a man who made friends on all sides of both Houses of Parliament. He was; big enough to rise above personalities and apply his reasoning to principles. The man who could do that would always be long remembered. They all sincerely regretted his passing. . . . ... . The motion was seconded by bir A. Ngata, and spoken to by a number of other members and earned. A similar motion was moved, regarding Mr Francis Henry Smith. Mr Savage said Mr Smith was a live wue, who was not afraid of a hght either inside or outside the House, and he was prepared to stand by his opinions. He 1 was ond of the old-timers, who haddone so much to place New Zealand on the map. Mr T. D. Burnett seconded the motion, and said Mr Smith was a member of one of the pioneering families of Otago and South Canterbury., The House then adjourned till 7.at) as a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased members. THE MORTGAGE BILL. Mr Savage moved that urgency be accorded the second reading ?f the Mortgagors and Lessees’ Rehabilitation Bill. This was challenged, but on a division being called for was carried by 36 to 10. , . • .. Mr Wrigbt said it was a question whether second mortgages should be allowed. Many widows had invested money in such mortgages, and now their security had in many eases vanished and they were penniless. He wondered if anything could be done for them. It was wrong, he contended, to regard mortgagees as wealthy persons. In many cases they were ordinary people who had invested their savings in mortgages. The friendly societies in New Zealand would he affected by the Bill, and probably many of their securities would have depreciated. Insurance companies, too, would bo affected, and the majority of the policy holders were working people. AVho under tbe circumstances would lend money on pronertv Mr C. H. Burnett said the Bill was really a type of bankruptcy legislation. Many farmers had reached a position where 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 the freehold" or not. What he wanted was security of tenure. Sir A. Ransom said a very important point was how far area was to be a factor in the operations of the Bill. Was there 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 he should be holding, and that it was desirable the 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 tj mortgagors under the Bill should not be greater than the general consideration given mortgagors. He said it should be stated by the Minister whether the 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 of the Bill would be most inequitable in operation. The Bill would make investments in land security most unpopular. The Prime Minister was not keeping his promises. Mr Savage had said that, as far as the Bill was concerned, both the mortgagee and the mortgagor would be fairly treated, but under the Bill neither would be satisfied- He would like to see the niort-

gagee to-day who would say 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.

Mr Cullen said there weke many lawyers in the country accustomed to handling land problems, and he suggested that some of them should be considered when the chairmen of the commissions were being selected. He claimed that the revaluation provisions in the Bill would greatly assist a number of returned soldier settlers, arid rid them of the burden of debt they had been carrying for many years. Mr Coates said ne would like to find out just where the Government members were standing. At one moment they were appealing for support of the fanner, and at the next for support of the mortgagee. He said the Bill was no improvement on the legislation of the last Government. The last Government had provided a !20 per cent, equity for farmers, but the present Bill did not provide any equity for the farmer. The Government had completely let down the farmer, and the legislation now before the House would mean nothing more than serfdom. 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 rate, which was less to the man employed in the farming industry than he could get outside; and now they came to *the third. When the third side of the triangle was examined it was found that the farmer was mortgaged 100 per cent. That was all the relief that was given the farmer. He was put on the basis of wages—-and not the wages of a man off a farm, but the wages of a man on a farm. The Government’s object seemed to be to collar the equity in the land. The Bill made the farmer a peasant with no other prospect than a reasonable standard of living. Mr Coates asked the Minister of Finance to explain what equity there was in farm land that had been 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, and he submitted that a man went on to the land to carve out a competency for himself and to provide a home for his family. It was the sheep farmer who felt the'first shock of the depression, but very little was heard about it till the dairy farmer was hit. The Bill did nothing to simplify the farmer’s position, and he thought the position would become increasingly complicated as the result of the Bill. Mr Barclay claimed that 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 a herd, and the farmer would get the equity that was there. The farmer would get the equity ho was creating, and if ne could increase the carrying capacity of his farm he would get the benefit of that increase. Mr Cobbe said the farmer to-day did not know where he was, nor did the mortgagee know where he 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 to 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 not give the expected help to the mortgagor.. It would in many cases merely mean postponement of the mortgagors’ liabilities The accumulation of money in the banks showed that people were afraid to advince money on land. Mr Dickie said many farmers who had been under budgetary control found that they realised their position from time to time and did not want to come out of it. The living expenses allowed were generous. The Bill was greatly in favour of the stock and station agents, loan and finance companies, and the banks, as against the mortgagee. Mr Poison said the old Act might have been improved upon and a definite equity preserved to the mortgagors, but the old Act did provide a settling down period and attempted to do justice to both the mortgagor and the mortgagee. The new Bill outraged a great many principles that had been looked upon in New Zealand as inviolate. It was a short cut to the Socialistic ideas of the Government, which meant confiscition of things which might have bean preserved. Mr Broadfoot said the farming industry was lot getting a fair deal from the Government. For years the fanning comaumity had been robbed of their improvements, and they were going to be further despoiled by the present Goveriment. It was time the farming coiimunity woke up and realised where the position was leading to. After Mr Nash had replied, the second reading was carried on the voices, and the Souse rose at 1.30 a.m.