AMENDMENTS TO BE INSERTED IN BILL

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 302, 17 September 1936, Page 12

AMENDMENTS TO BE INSERTED IN BILL

Contributions to Fish Research Consideration of the Mortgagors and Lessees Rehabilitation Bill in the committee stage was commenced, by the House ot . Representatives yesterday. The afternoon sitting was terminated half an hour earlier than usual in order that members might attend the annual meeting of the New Zealand branch of tie Empire Parliamentary Association. The House rose at 9.25 p.m., following the passing of the first three clauses of the Bill and the introduction by Governor-General s Message of a Fisheries Amendment Bill, which authorises the issue of regulations permitting acclimatisation societies to make contributions out oi licence fees to fresh-water fish research. Discussion on the mortgage legislation waS confinedalmost exclusively to the short title, and with the exception of the Minister of Finance, Hon. W. Nash, the only speakers were Opposition members and Independents. A number of amendments are to be made to the Bill, including one that will prevent mortgagors securing an unfair advantage of an adjustment. The Minister intends to have the Bill reprinted with these amendments inserted, and then reintroduce the measure m its amended ments use j were similar to those heard during the second reading debate. This was completed at Tuesday’s sitting, which extended into the early hours of. yesterday morning, the Bill being read a second time on the voices.

Replying to points raised by the Opposition, Mr. Nash said he proposed to bring in an amendment so that a mortgagor who had had'some benefit at the expense of the mortgagee would not be able to secure an advantage out of it by an early sale. "Our idea, added the Minister, "is not to encourage the sale of land, and we do not want to see the mortgagor beat the mortgagee.”

The position of members of existing adjustment commissions was raised by the Hon. A. Hamilton (Opposition, Wallace). They had gained valuable experience in dealing with farm' mortgage problems, he said, and the Government would be well advised, to. retain their services. New commissions were to be appointed under the Bill, but the Minister would probably improve matters considerably if he, arranged for the existing commissions to continue. ‘lt would be disastrous if any bias was shown in the appointment of members of commissions," said Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago). , ‘"The work of the commissions will prove the strength or weakness of the Government’s legislation." Mr. Nash said that men of experience would be appointed to the com- ' missions. The possible necessity for several further appointments to the Supreme Court Bench was mentioned by Sir Alfred Ransom (Opposition, Rahiatua). Two extra judges would probably be required, he said, owing to the stress of work likely to face the Court of Review. One judge of the Supreme Court was due to retire shortly and it seemed that the Government would have to give consideration to several appointments. Court of Review. Mr. 0. A. Wilkinson (Independent Egrnont) expressed the opinion that rhe work of the Court of Review would not be increased to any marked extent He did not think it was necessary for the judge of the court to have two associate members. The services of such men, well versed in mortgage problems, could be more profitably employed on adjustment commissions. “The Court of Review will be largely concerned with formalities,” said Mr. 11. G. Dickie (Opposition, Patea). “I cannot see that there will be any necessity for the appointment of additional judges. The adjustment commissions will have to do the bulk of the work.” Mr. W. J. Polson (Opposition, Stratford) said that in the fixing of productive value under the Bill no provision was made for profit. An amount representing sinking fund ought to be provided so that a farmer could look forward to the day when he would be a ble to pay off his mortgage. There was a suggestion that a flat mortgage when -- refinanced at the end of five years would become a second mortgage and that might place many farmers in a difficult position. Mr. Nash said the principle of priority mortgages was in operation in Great Britain, where it had proved of great value to many occupiers of land. It was designed for the definite purpose of ensuring the maximum of production. It was highly ( necessary to ensure that the farmer could obtain adequate supplies of seed and manure. Mr. Nash added that some reference had been made to the possible sale of properties. Power would be taken to ensure that farmers who benefited by adjustments would not be permitted to

sell their properties within the period of. adjustment. The Government’s taxation proposals, the Minister continued, provided for higher taxation to be paid by companies. At present the load of taxation fell on the ordinary shareholder, but steps would be taken to bring in interest paid to debenture-holders and preference shareholders. If preference shareholders felt they were not getting justice they would be able to make application to the court. Equity of Farmer. Mr. Wilkinson raised the question whether the farmer was to. have any equity in his land after his mortgage was adjusted. The Minister had stated previously that the mortgagee would be entitled to two-thirds of his mortgage at the end of five years, but. if a farmer was left mortgaged 100 per cent., it was difficult to see how he would be able to refinance. The Bill would be strengthened enormously if the Government undertook to see that the mortgagee got his two-thirds. “I am strongly in favour of adjustments being made," Mr. Wilkinson added, “but I do not want to see the mortgagor getting away with the swag.” Mr. Wilkinson also referred to the position of provisional trustees holding moneys under the existing legislation. The Rill did not deal with the particular aspect and the Minister should explain whether the money would go back to the farmer or not. The position with regard to existing pooling arrangements should also be explained. . , • Mr. Nash said the points raised would be covered in amendments to the Bill to be introduced later. The necessity for the farmer mortgagor to have a prospect of securing an equity in his land was emphasised by the. Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Opposition, Kaipara). He said it was not expressed in the Bill, but it was evidently the intention that the farmer should be given an equity in the final analysis. Conditions were, however, to be made very difficult for the mortgagors, because they would have no haven after the basic value of their property had been arrived at. If they missed one payment as fixed by the Court of Review they were gone. “I believe,” Mr. Coates added, “that more farmers will go out under this Bill than under the budgetary system. Mr. Bodkin contended that under the Bill an unduly heavy burden would be placed on the mortgagee. It would be a very grave wrong, he said, if the whole of the burden of rehabilitating the mortgagor were to fall on the mortgagee. The Government should be prepared to do its share. Mr. R. A. Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs) asked, how the valuation of the mortgagor’s property was to be arrived at. Would the Government valuation be taken, he asked, or would the Adjustment Commissions secure a valuation of their own? Mr. Nash: They may take the Government valuation or any other. The onus is on the commissions to do it in the best way possible. Mr. Wright: That is as fair a way as can be adopted. The Minister intimated that it was proposed to introduce a good many amendments to the Bill. He suggested that the best course would be to read them straight into the Bill, which could be reprinted with the amendments. A good deal of confusion could thus be avoided. The first three clauses were passed on the voices.