RETROSPECTIVE?

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 66, 19 March 1931, Page 8

RETROSPECTIVE?

PRESSURE ON MR. FORBES. GOVERNMENT TO CONSIDER. NO "GETTING AHEAD" OF LAW. (B. Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. The introduction of the Mortgagors' Relief Bill aroused intense interest in the House, and, as a consequence, the first reading stage saw a general discussion, the greatest anxiety being shown that transactions involving hardship, which had already gone through, should be subject to review. Replying, the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, gave an assurance that mortgagees would not be able to "get ahead" of the legislation, and also that the question of making the provisions retrospective would be considered.

Mr. Forbes stated that the bill would supplement the provision already made under which Commissioners of Crown Lands were acting as conciliation commissioners between mortgagors and mortgagees. He was pleased to say that a good deal of very useful work had already been done ip this way in bringing the parties together. The bill was different from the moratorium, which operated to extend mortgages, and caused the mortgagee to approach the Court. In the present case the mortgagee would have to approach the Court to show why the mortgage should be lifted. The whole surrounding circumstances would be reviewed, and the Court would find out whether the proposed action would result in putting a man off his land or, displacing him from his property. The interest of the mortgagee must also be considered, because many people who put money into mortgages were absolutely dependent on it for their income, so that it would be left to the tribunal to decide what was fair.

Mr. Jones (Reform, Mid-Canter-bury): Will it have compulsory powers? The Prime Minister: It will decide whether the mortgage should be called up or not. Mr. W. J. Poison (Independent, Stratford) : Will it have power to deal with postponement of interest? The Prime Minister: The matter of whether a person should be sold up for non-payment of interest will come under the tribunal. Immediate Relief Wanted. Mr. M. J. Savage (Labour, Auckland West) welcomed the Prime Minister's statement, but suggested that if it did not give immediate relief it would be "fooling the people." What was going to happen to the average farmer while tho legislation was being passed? While the tribunal was being set up, mortgagees should not have the right to foreclose, otherwise the introduction of the bill would simply stimulate the calling up of mortgages. Mr. T. W. McDonald (United, Wairarapa) assured the Prime Minister that retrospective action was needed, for he had a number of instances showing that mortgagees were doing their utmost to put out the mortgagor. Mr. W. L. Martin' (Labour, Raglan): We all have.

Mr. Martin asked that a clause making the bill act retrospectively should be inserted, covering transactions of the current year. The Government had already accepted this principle by announcing that any attempt to force the position "between mortgagor and mortgagee in Napier would be dealt with by legislation, which wag not yet in existence. ''Sanctity of Contract." Mr. Poison dcclarcd that if the bill proposed to go further than securing postponement of interest and calling up of mortgages, so long as the mortgagee did not suffer hardship,, then it assailed a vital principle of British law, the sanctity of contract, and would have a sharp repercussion in the country. Ninety per cent of the cases could be settled by mutual consent. Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South) recalled that the previous bill extending mortgages was passed overnight, because Parliament was told that unless that Avcrc done before offices opened next morning, mortgagees would become active and a crash would ensile. Many other members showed their interest in 'the matter by raising similar points, and when the Prime Minister replied he said the bill made it very clear that the provisions applied to the Crown as well as the private individuals (hear, hear). "In introducing such legislation," he added, "it is a case of breaking new ground, and, of course, mistakes can be made. The idea of having the measure 'circulated is to let the country know what is proposed, so that representations for, perhaps, the extension of its scope or the incorporation of additional safeguards can k received before the second reading stage is reached."

"Protection From Now Onwards." Emphasising that it was intended to bring the Act into operation immediately after it had been passed, the Prime Minister said it could be accepted that from to-day any attempt to "get ahead" of the legislation would not be successful. (Lour "Hear, heads.") "I want to ma"ke that clear to any who may be trying to rush in ahead of the bill," added Mr. Forbes. "We will prevent that being done." Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon): That means you will protect everyone from now onwards? The Prime Minister: Yes. He added that the Government would consider making the legislation retrospective. In rejecting a suggestion that the second reading should be taken forthwith, Mr. Forbes said the Government I desired the fullest consideration of the, bill before it was passed. What was' wanted was something that was workable and would not be unjust to cither mortgagee or mortgagor. "I feel sure," j he said, "that it is not the desire of the. House to be unjust to any of these parties. While we often hear the mortgagee described as a Shylock, we must remember there are Shylocks among the mortgagors, and I think that, taken as a whole, the mortgagees of New Zealand are reasonable men. I know from information supplied me that in a great many cases they are meeting the mortgagors very liberally in 'eed. Of course, tnere are exceptions, and it is ' these the bill is designed to deal with." Mr. R. Semple (Labour, Wellington East): We don't need to worry about the decent chap. The bill was rea.d a first time.