Hire Purchase Bill sent back again

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32774, 26 November 1971, Page 10

Hire Purchase Bill sent back again

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 25. The introduction of three pages and a half of amendments to the Hire Purcliase Bill in Parliament tonight brought charges that the Government was bowing to the wishes of one section of the community.

The Opposition’s insistence that the bill and amendments should be returned to the Statutes Revision Committee for further consideration resulted in the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr Thomson) agreeing to do so. Dr A. M. Finlay (Lab., Henderson) said that the bill, which provides a new code for hire purchase agreements, was introduced in August, 1970, and had been studied by the Statutes Revision Committee for almost a year. But in September, the Associated Chambers of Commerce met the Government and after that a supplementary Order Paper came down giving a “different approach” to some of the topics. “The history of the bill shows it is not to be tinkered with lightly,” Dr Finlay said. “I am not going to say the amendments are wrong or bad, but this is a bad way of legislating.”

The bill was conceived in 1962 and was due to be born in a few weeks, he said. After nine years of “gestation” the Government had decided to change the body. “This is professional obstetrics with a difference,” he added. It was another example of the Government’s administrative incapacity. The chairman of the Statutes Revision Committee, Sir Leslie Munro (Nat., Hamilton West), said he did not favour the bill’s being referred back to the committee, but suggested that members of the committee should get "round the table” with the Minister and officials and discuss the amendments before they were considered by the House. He admitted to being a “little baffled” by the course being taken.

“I believe we (the committee) did a very good job,” he said.

The Under-Secretary for Education (Mr Gair), said it had been found necessary to add some refinements which did not affect the substance of the bill. Matters of commercial practice were clarified he said. There were certain “wise qualifications.”