MORTGAGE RELIEF

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 110, 6 November 1933, Page 6

MORTGAGE RELIEF

. The report from Palmerston North that members of the, .Wellington Mortgagors Relief Commission have ceased work as a 1 protest against the way the Courts are administering the Act raises issues of great gravity. When questioned in the House of Representatives concerning the accuracy of the report, the Minister of Justice replied: "So far as I know the Wellington board is functioning at the present time. lam not aware that it has ceased operations." This was, however, not a complete contradiction of the report and it was no answer at all to the second part of Mr. Atmore's question: "Has a representative of the board approached the Government asking that the appeal to the Judge should be abolished, so as to leave sole power in the /hands of the board?" It is this latter part of the question that makes the issue of importance to New Zealand as a whole. The Adjustment Commissions have been given wide powers; but they have not the authority of the Supreme Court. They may investigate all cases submitted to them, ascertain the facts, and, if possible, arrange settlements. But where such settlements cannot be niade by consent of the'parties the Commissions can only recommend terms to' the Judge. It is the function of the Courts to decide.

This is a necessary and reasonable precaution. . The revision of contracts by compulsion is not to.be lightly undertaken; The Legislature has declared that it is permissible, but it has given authority for this purpose only to the Judges who, from their training and experience, are least likely to exercise the powers with chaos-producing freedom. Public confidence has been badly shaken by interference with contracts, but it would be even more disturbed if there were not the safeguard given by appeal to the Judge. With no such appeal it would be,extremely difficult to maintain anything approaching uniformity. The Judges can confer and agree upon certain guiding principles; but even this does not give complete assurance of uniform decisions. And if each Commission were to be a law unto itself one could not say where the matter woujd end. No information is available as to the complaints of the Commission against the Court, and as the decisions are not made public,it is not possible to form a judgment. But we cannot conceive of complaints which would warrant the Government acceding to the reported request and abolishing the existing safeguards. In the reports mention is made of rumours that the Commissioners think the Courts not as lenient as they might be. The term "lenient" evokes the question: Lenient to whom—mortgagor or mortgagee? Surely the aim of v the Courts, and the Commissioners, would be better expressed as justice

than as leniency.