DIVORCE BILL.

Hokitika Guardian, 6 February 1922, Page 3

DIVORCE BILL.

SHOULD IT BE RETROSPECTIVE

WELLINGTON, Eeb. 3

The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act Amendment Bill, providing that divorce shall not be granted upon the application of a petitioner who has committed a wrongful act, came tip for Its second leading in the House to-night, having passed the Legislative Council. The Prime Minister said he would only take the second reading, and he believed the House would approve the Bill but it subsequently transpired that opposition would develop in the proposal that the 'Bill shall not apply in cases where a decree nisi has been, granted, or to prevent making the decree absolute.

The Hon E. P. Lee, Minister of Justice, explained that a decree nisi was an actual divorce, the further application being a formula which was a safe-

guard. Mr Sullivan: Would you interfere in the case of an innocent woman who will have a decree against her made absolute?

Mr Lee : It is unfortunate that it might be, but it is not. a right principle to bring in retrospective legislation. Mr Wilford who said be spoke from experience as counsel in fifteen hundred divorce eases, contended that a motion for a decree absolute was simply to give everyone notice and to enable the judge to safeguard the future of tho children. If there were no children the proceeding was quite automatic. He was of opinion that all persons had commenced proceedings for divorce under last year’s Act and the cases would bo heard at the end of February, tliev should be given the full benefit of the Act if citation had been served. He was sure the Court, already had discretion to refuse divorce. All the troublo had arisen over the Mason case in Christchurch, wher e the judgment of the Court in the public opinion was wrong.

Mr M’Coinbs declared that the proviso would inflict wrong upon an innocent woman, against whom a decree nisi had been granted. Her petition to Parliament asking for an amendment of this law had been referred to the Government for urgent and favourable

consideration. Mr J. M. Dickson, chairman of tho Public Petitions Committee, which had considered the petition of a woman against whom a decree nisi had been issued, said the committee was unanimous in favouring her petition, and at the instance of the committee he approached the Attorney-General to ask that a clause be inserted to prevent the injustice of the decree being made absolute. Unfortunately the AttorneyGeneral added a proviso directing judges not to apply the new Bill where

a decree nisi had been issued. Only one woman in New Zealand was effected, and lie was emphatically of opinion that her case should be recogniesd and her petition granted. Mr Howard declared that last session of Parliament did a wrong and should

now set it right. If it did not, follow tho recommendation of tlio select committee it would he an everlasting disgrace. Mr Fraser remarked that ©very member of the House must take responsibility for last year’s Act, which was rushed through at the session’s end. H 0 warned members not to take too much notice of cases which were used by various bodies for purposes or propaganda because they were against all divorce. Mr Holland said tho problem was too big to bp dealt with in the early hoiirs. It oujg#iio be discussed when members were clear headed. The Minister, in reply, said that if the House made amendments in tho Bill which were not acceptable to the Legislative Council then there was danger of the measure being lost, the close of the session being so close at hapd, The second reading was agreed to on the voices.