MORTGAGORS' RELIEF BILL AMENDED

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 182, 26 March 1932, Page 5

MORTGAGORS' RELIEF BILL AMENDED

("Post" Special Co'mmissioner) .

fMPORTAJff^CHANGE power to determine rights ' -v ' ' under*- pers'onal- ' * n \ 1 "c'6ven'ajNt " DELETED BY UPPER HOUSE

* * . * ' * *' • \ - . r « WELLINGTON, Thursday. WELLINGTObf, Thursday. Strong exceptlon f o some of the* provjsions of the TMortgagoVs anH' T ena'nts -Relief '"Bill' was fafeen' hy several members of "fhe LegTslafive Gbuncil " to-day antl amendments 'iiitrdiluceH 'hy Ithe Council led to complications between ihe- two Houses. When the Bill wa's' introduced in the Upper House yesterday- i't"wak ref erred to 'the 'Statut^S Rbvislon -Gonimittee, which- added ttx the clause dealing with the personal covenant, pfdvi'Mon that' the juclge should have express power to impose special conditioUs" o'ti'the mbrtgagor as- fcbrisidferatin for -the- postponement of the mortgagee^s rfghts.' " Under the original Bill the judge had ntf "power'bther thank to 'make a bare and unconditional order of postponement. Now the judge may rule that the' mortgagor shall pay -up his- interest or^othefwise reasonabl'y face *:his • obligatlons -before ' getting the benefit of the clause: 1 - The provision in the original Bill giving the 'cburt power tb •determine all' the ■mortgageeV ri'ghfs afe fegar'ds the person'al- -Co'Venant 'Has --also bee'tt altefedJ The Stat'utes Revision' Gb'm•hiit'tee debated 'entirely this prbvisioh, lea'viiig > the court power "merely tb posfpone ' for ' a period ■ as " it' thinks fit tHe moltgagee's rights. The ' committee did iiot ihterfere, however, with the provisions in regard to Crown mortgagefes as it was not desir'ed !to trespass on the' rights o'f the Hduse ' of- Representatives- in reference" to ' financial' proVision affecting Cro'wn fevenuev ;- »• - •

"Drastic Features" When the* Bill cafrie" before the Council this' morning,1 th'e Efeader bf the'Councii, Sir J*ames Pkrr; sajd tbat the Statutes "Revision ''Committed, while remembering that all sections of the Lower House* Tiad agreed to tbe Bill uhanimously, bad felt that it was the committee's duty tb remove some' of the * drastic features of the measure. " ••••-•■• Sir Francis Bell said he was opposed tb "the" Bill, 'but had been quite willing to aid the 'Governfnent by suggesting amendments.- > It was proposed that every person operating under a'mortgage could apply to'th'e court for relief, : first for "the postponement, arid'lheri for the reduction of interest, and finally "fof the wiping out " of all or part of his arrears" of interest.

Last year the Government had represented 'that - action- was - necessary owing to the condition of the farming indnstry- and that was' the* only precedent on which they were being asked -to extend the provisions to mortgagors of city sections." They were being asked to take'ah immense step, and the next logical step, surely> would h'e to apply the provisions of fhe measure to bills' bf exchange. They were being asked to make a tremendous descent" from the standards of'honesty and fair dealing which had been a f eat'ure bf fhe administration of every part of ' the British Empire'. "I intend tb vbte against the Bill as k wHo'le," said' Sif Francis' Bell, "and I think the Government "will give me credit for having made my position clear right from the start. I will not' be a party to'wTi'at I belie've to be a grave depar'ture from the p'rinciples wliich have hitherto governed' the relations o'f debtor and creditor in the country 'tb" which we belorig." Evidence of Banks Sir Francis Bell said the Council was being asked to make a tremem dous Pbange' in tbe sHortest possible time and it'had been pfevented from heariiig evidence. The only evidence which the Statutes Revision Committee had been able to take had been that of the associated banks and he was surprised that the Government did not uridefstand'the warning which had been issued by tbe cbairman of the Associated Banks.

•The Ho'h'. R. Masters said there was a real desire' ori the. -part -of the Goyernment 'to get the Bill through the Council at the earliest possible opportunity as there was a feeling tbat soniefhing would happen befWeen le^sors arid' lessees if- 'there was Uhdue delay. ' He said that the' Bill had been made nebessaxy as a r esult- of fhe Depression, which had inflieted great hardships • on 'mortgagors.' - Tf they bould help farm'erk tb stay on the land they' would be d'oing.'the coim-t-ry a "great Service.' Co'uncillors would remember that every -application had to be considered by the b'odrt:'s ' • ' • Mr. Masters concluded by saying thaf thej)- 'could not re'duce the wages of fhfe -working elass'uhless they were kls6 prepared t'o deal With' fixed charges. He appealed tb- the Council to put the Bill through all its Stages that day. ' " - -1- - In "Cominittee Sir Francis Bell's amendntenf was defeat'ed :by 20 votes to- V' Votes.5 ' •' Jl " ' '* Sir- Francis Bell moved a further aniendment- to "de'brive - a1 magiStrate of the right to send a mortgagor to gaol for debt. ' This' Was' accepted by tHe Lea'der ' 'of tHV Council'and- agreed The Bill was passed by 21 votes to 7 votes. * ' / ' • WHen tbe Bill was received back by the House* of RepreSefitatives the Speakef raised the'question as tb whetbef 'tbe "ahiendmbhts intef f ered with moneys of tbe Cfown, wbieh1 were solely" contrbli'ed by tbe-HbuSe. - Mr. Forbes'said the principal obiection • was that"- ffie Council ' had amended fhe 'clause relating 'to determining the (fu'estidn of thfe personal -'covena'nt in such a'way1 that it now applied" only to the Crown: This, of course, placed 'the. 'Cr'o'wh' iri an ihequitable position -compared -with bther ' mortgagees. It had "been the intention o'f -the- House that equaj benefit shoiild *be received by all mortgagors.- On- the PremieFs moti6iijf;Messrs. Forbes, 'J. U.' Coates, afid Wi' E- Bafnaf d: -were '• 'appoihted managers to * conf er witK repres^e'htatives of the- Gouneil on the subjeet- ' -Sir FrancH'BelL the-'Hofi. R." Masters and* Sir 1 jaffiie^FJfr fexe Ap^biiit-

ed managers by the Council. When the House resuihed this everiing, Mf. Forbes annouUced that the ' managers h'ad agreed to ' recommend'the dropping from the Bill of the 'pro'Vision which gave the court power to determine the question of the personal covenant. He pointed out that there was power for th'e court to postpohe; action in connection with the personal covenant for ariy length' of time it thought fit: Mr. D. g. Sullivah (Labour, Avondale) : ' That means that the couft will be able ;to' postpone,3 but not t'o Can'cel' or' remove, the perso'nal covenant. "• '■ i ' Mr. Forbes: Yes. He explained that the value of 'the clause was not lost becaiise the 'postponement df action would leave time for the g6vernment to' re-enact the clause so that it vVpuld provide' power to "determine the -question if - it were fourid that such a course was possible.' ' Labour members c'ont'ended * that the ame'ndment Would nullify the 'effect of th'e original' propos'al. * f Mr. Forbes ; said' all' the protection asked for the mortgagor" Wa's still1 in the' Bill." ' ' — The 'Opposition challenged the amehdment and - a division waS takdn by a thin House. TKe Gdvernmerit hdd a narro'w- escape, "the Managers' rfeport- being agreed to by"13 - Votes to 12 vdtes.-' The Bill was passed by both Houses and the* Hduse 'adjourned till -April 5. •• •* " ' * ' '