PARLIAMENT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 306, 24 November 1932, Page 3

PARLIAMENT

RELIEF OF MORTGAGORS. IMPORTANT AMENDMENTS. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Nov. 23. The effect of one clause in the Mortgagors land Tenuaits Further Relief Dill, described by Hon. J. G. Cobbe, in the House of Representatives today, as being probably the most important, will be to restore protection to those mortgagors who having been originally protected, have lost their protection either by the variation of their mortgages or by the execution of new mortgages in replacement of moitgages that were within the protection of the Act. Section 13 of the Mortgagors’ and Tenants’ Relief Act is accordingly -repealed. Under the principal Act the guarantor of the mortgage enjoys the same protection as the mortgagor himself. It has been represented, however, that there are persons who for all practical purposes are guarantors of a mortgage debt but are not technically so. The purpose of one clause is to extend the protection of the principal Act to persons in that position. . . Under section three of the principal Act the Governor-General is empowered to exclude from the operation of that Act by Order-in-Council any specified mortgages or classes of mortgages. The purpose of the clause in the amending Bill is to confer express authority on the Governor-General to revoke or vary any such . Order-m-Council instead of relying on any implied authority to do so. Under the principal Act the mortgagee is prevented from exercising certain powers until the mortgagor has been given an opportunity to apply to the Court for relief. When the mortgagor is an incorporated company, however, the mortgagee is not prevented from applying to the Court for the compulsory winding up of the company. The purpose of the clause in the Bill is to give that additional protection. , Under section eight of the principal Act an order made by the Court in relief of the mortgagor expires unless renewed on the expiration of 12 months after the date of the mortgagor’s application. Where the proceedings are protracted it may happen that the order is .due to expire almost as soon as it is made. The purpose of the clause in the Bill is to allow the Court to fix the duration of the order by reference to the date when the order, not the application, is made. The period now is to be two years from the date of the order instead of 12 months from the date of the mortgagor’s application for relict. The purpose of another clause is to allow parties to agree to accept the decision of the stipendiary magistrate in applications that would but for such an agreement be beyond the jurisdiction of the magistrate.. At present where principal moneys unpaid under the mortgage exceed £2OOO the matter has to be taken to the Supreme Court. Another clause refers particularly to mortgages of stock and farm produce. The clause authorises the Court to join the stock mortgagee m the proceedings as between the mortgagor and mortgagee of the land. In any such case the Court and the Adjustment Commission are directed to consider whether or not the stock mortgagee is showing proper consideration for the interests of the mortgagor and of -the mortgagee of the land. . . The final clause makes provision tor the extension of Idle jurisdiction of magistrates in cases affecting leases where parties mutually agreed to accept the finding of the magistrate. The Bill was introduced by GovernoipGeneral’s message and read a first time. . Mr Cobbe said the measure amended and extended the existing legislation. He proposed to ask for urgency at the second reading because it was necessary that the matter should be dealt with almost at once. Mr W. Nash asked whether it would be possible to make provision under the Bill for those who were experiencing difficulty in keeping up payments under hire purchase agreements. Mr W. A. Veitcli said he hoped protection would be given those affected by the personal covenant. ' Mr Cobbe said the personal covenant was' a dangerous thing to interfere with and already a certain amount of protection had been given under the Miortgngors’ and Tenants’ Relief Act, passed earlier ill the year. It. was not proposed to deal with the question of hire purchase.

PUBLIC WORKS VOTE. RETAINING FEE,TO ENGINEER. ITEM ATTACKED. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Nov. 23. When the House of Representatives went into Committee of Supply to-night on the Public Works Estimates, Mr W. E. Parry said they were entitled to the fullest information respecting the retaining fee for the former Engineer-in-Chief of the Public Works Department (Mr F.- W. Furkert). It was stated that Mr Furkert was to retire on £I3OO a year, and now he was to receive an additional £250 a year, which would mean that he would still be receiving the amount he was enjoying prior to his retirement. Mr M. J. Savage referred to the item of £500,000 for the settlement of unemployed workers, and asked whether this referred to the ten-acre scheme. He said these holdings might he all right for the settlement of men on land in’the vicinity of railways or towns, but when men were placed on small blocks of land in a corner of someone else’s holding, irrespective of the situation, there was not much hope for them. Mr D. G. Sullivan complained thau the reduction of the vote for school buildings from £350,000 to £IOO,OOO was too drastic. He said many children wore being housed in poor buildings and both children and teachers were being severely handicapped. Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, Minister in charge of the department, said he could not say what superannuation ' the retiring 'Engineer-in-Chief of the Public Works Department was to receive, but he had been engaged in a consulting and advisory capacity, because his services were ’considered most valuable in connection with the construction work at Arapuni and Waitaki, and certain harbour works which were being carried out. His advice was also of great value in connection with inquiries which were proceeding. Mr Coates said he could assure the House that the money was being well spent. If the engineer had been paid a normal fee for the work he was doing the cost to the Government would have been much greater.

SMALL FARMING SATISFACTORY. Replying to Mr Savage, Mr Coates said the £500,000 referred to was for reclamation, land improvement and settlement. Mr Savage had Ixon wrong in classing all the holdings as ten-acre blocks. They were five acres in some instances and 200 acres in others. So far, 560 men had been settled and half tlies’e were no longer a charge on the unemployment fund, which

meant that they were capable of supporting themselves. It was true £130,000' had been spent out of the 'capital fund, but the results had proved most satisfactory. Mr E. J. Howard asked if the retaining fee entitled the Government to Mr Furkert’s services at all times. For example, if Arapuni broke down again next year would Mr Furkert be available for the same sum of £250? Mr Coates: Yes. We have his services whenever we want them. Mr Parry moved to reduce the vote by £5. He said his object was to indicate the House’s disapproval of the retaining fee being paid. The amendment was defeated by 31 to 25. Messrs C. A. Wilkinson, H. M. Huslnvorth, 11. A. Wright, A. M. Samuel, and H. Atmore joined the Labour members in voting for it. Messrs H. S. Kyle and D. McDougall also voted for Mr Parry’s amendment. The Public Works Estimates providing for allocations totalling £3,620,700 were pased and the House rose at 11 p.m.