Parliament in Session

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 198, 4 August 1928, Page 6

Parliament in Session

Divorce and Matrimonial Causes

Bill Read the Second Time

Wellington, August 3. The Hon. F. J. Rolleston moved the second reading of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill in the House of Representatives to-night. Hie Minister said the Bill was really a consolidating measure. Usually in consolidating measures it was the duty of the compilers to adhere closely to the language of the existing statutes, otherwise some change might unintentionally be made in the law ■ but when they had to go back to 1867, as they did in New Zealand, the case was slightlv different. In a general way the changes made in the law by this Bill were slight.

The Leader of the Opposition said that while the Bill cleared up the position of domicile of a New Zealand wife, there was another class of wife for whom on provision was made; for instance, when the American fleet was in New Zealand waters some of the American sailors married New Zealand girls and promptly deserted them. They had no redress in this country because their husband's domicile was in America. He thought that class of ease should be met. and he suggested that some clause should he inserted in the Bill before it was finally nassed.

Sir ,T. H, Wilford (Hutt) said the law should be altered so that a girl who was accused by a wife of adultery with her husband must be served with notice of that charge, so that she might come to court and defend herself. No such notice was now necessary, and he had previously tried to get the law amended, but the Government had not allowed him to do so. Generally he congratulated the Minister on his revision of the law, but he would go further and give anv woman the right to a divorce whose husband was an habitual drunkard. Divorces were not increasing in New Zealand, except in some cities, where man married “fryingpan’’ wives and in these cases he thought, th" ground of divorce should be indigestion.

The Minister, in reply, said he did not think that a Consolidating Bill should be made a vehicle of increasing the grounds of divorce. There were, however, minor alterations in th" law ' r hich might he considered. The Bill was road tlio second time end referred to th Statutes Revision Committee.

HANMER CROWN LEASES

RIGHT OF RENEWAL. The Hon. A, D. McLeod moved the second reading of the Hanmer Crown Leases Bill. He explained that the primary object of the Bill is to afford Crown lessees in the township of Hanmer and the immediate vicinity an opportunity of securing a more permanent form of lease in respect of lands held by them. The majority to these leases are for a term of 42 years without the right of renewal. They wore granted under the powers embodied in the Land Act of 1921. There are 49 leases of township sections, covering an area of 34 acres 6 perches, and 19 leases of suburban areas, aggregating 402 acres, making a total of 68 leases covering an area of 436 acres. The Bill provides a new form of lease up to 21 years, with the perpetual right of renewal under the Public Bodies Leases Act. All applications for new leases are to be considered by a special Committee, which will investigate each case on its merits and submit specific recommendations. There is a clause in the Bill providing that the Crown may resume possession of land containing mineral springs or natural gas. Labour members complimented the Minister of Lands on the inclusion of Clause 14.

The Hon. R. A. Wright, Minister of Education, said th.e clause was put in the Act as a check on “dummyism’’ and had nothing to do with tenure.

The Hon. O. J. Hawken said Clause 14 applied to the leasehold, and not to tiie freehold, which made all the difference between the case of the Reform party and that of the Labour party.

Tim Minister of Lands, in reply, said the question of leasehold versus freehold was not raised in this Bill, hut he hoped to remain long enough in the House to nass an enactment giving the freehold to all holders of rural lands. Clause 14 in the Bill was necessary to protect the Crown against aggregation and dummyism. and it had no other purpose. It had been in the land law for many years, and it was curious that the Labour

party only now had discovered its existence. The second reading was agreed to on the voices

PROPERTY LAW

RELIEF FOR LEASEHOLDERS

The Hon. F. J. Rolleston moved the second reading of the Property Law Amendment Bill. The Minister said the bill was intended to give relief if a leaseholder is refused renewal of a lease because he has committed some unsubstantial breach of the lease. In such case a leaseholder would, under the bill, have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, and it would be for the Court to say whether refusal to renew the lease was equitable or not. The law already provided for relief in case of forfeiture, and in this bill he was adopting the same principle in regard to renewals. No rights enjoyed by the landlord were being taken away, because his rights were protected by the provisions of the Compensation Bill, which was being brought in to meet, the particular case, but the principle was general and that was why a general, and not a particular bill was being briught down. He recited the facts of a case which had given rise to the demand for the bill, and declared that the facts of the case were such that no Government could stand idly by and see the fanner ousted from the land on which he had spent large sums of money when his breaches of covenant were technical rather than substantial. The bill applied to a lease which had expired, and exception might be taken to it on that ground, but the case was such that he felt they must take action to prevent injustice. He proposed to refer the bill to the Statutes Revision Committee, to which names and other particulars would be supplied. At this stage the Speaker intervened and ruled that members must not discuss the details of the par ticular case mentioned by the Minister, since it was against the rules of the House to debate cases before courts, but the House could debate the general principle underlying the measure.

The Leader of the Opposition said thst so far as the general *principle of the bill was concerned, he appioved of it; but there were details whien might require revision, but since the Minister agreed to send the bill to the Statutes Revision Committee he was satisfied to leave it at that for the present. Air. T. M. Wilford (Hutt) said the bid was much too wide. There was no limit to the time when questions of expired leases could be revised, and he suggested that sub-section 1 of clause 3 should be considerably restricted, otherwise lessors might be subjected to most irritating litigatio i.

The Minister, ’n reply, said the hill did not contain any attack on native leases and he would ■ quite willingly have it referred to the Niti Affairs Committee. He was pre) ;ne<! to consider the point raised by Mr. Wilford, that clause 3 was too wide and he would ask the Statute'' Revision Committee to consider it The bill was read the second time and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Replying to Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) the Ministei of Public Wroks stated that if a copy of the allegations made regarding conditions on the Waiau-Barnasus relief works whre furnished, he would be glad to have an immediate inquiry made.

Replying to Mr. H. Atmore (Nelson), the Prime Minister said that when finance permitted it was the intention of the Minister of Defence to appoint in Britain a permanent New Zealand liaison officer in connection with the Air Force, whose duty it would be. to keep the Goveinroent posted in the latest infoir.eiion regarding military and cinin creial aviation.

Reviving to Mr. W, L. Martin (Raglan) the Hon. A. D. McLeod said hs was advised by the Electoral Department that the printing of the electoral rolls was almost completed, and that' the rolls would be issued at an early date.