DISTRESS AND REPLEVIN BILL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 6 September 1935, Page 7

DISTRESS AND REPLEVIN BILL

WHY WAS IT DROPPED ? (By Telegraph) (From “The Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, sth September. Mr W. E. Barnard (Labbur, Napier > jnoved for leave to introduce the Distress and Replevin Amendment Bill. He said the Bill had been introduced a number of. times by Mr R. Fraser last session. It. was taken up by the Government and actually reported to the House, but there the matter rested. The main object in introducing the Bill was to ascertain where they stood in connection with that legislation. He hoped the Minister of Justice would gi\-f> the House some indication whether the Government intended to go on with the matter or not, The Bill aimed to provide exemption for personal and family clothing of a tenant up to £. r )0 in value from being seized. It repealed the- proviso that that exemption was available to a tenant only on condition that he gave up possession to the landlord if demanded. The Bill did to some extent meet the position of the relief worker and. did no disservice to the average landlord. The measure was not a com-: plete remedy, but it did' remove, to some extent, the difficulties, hardship and injustice which an unfortunate man and his wife and family might suffer through failing to pay rent, because he had not enough money to do so. Mr Sullivan urged that before a person could be" ejected, an order should be secured from a Magistrate wlia would investigate the position for the tenant and landlord. The Hon. J. B. C’obbe (Minister of Justice) said it was not improbable that the.Bill might be brought down again. He doubt not say so definitely, but much depended on how the ordinary business proceeded. He introduced the: Bill last session and it was referred to Committee. It came back to the Hoiise in such skeleton form that it was of very little use and ho did not think at that stage of the Session there was any use going on with 1 it. From correspondence he had received, he knew the legal profession was very much against the Bill being put through. At the same time, he thought something should be done to alleviate the position of those cases to which Mr Barnard had referred.

The Bill was supported by a number of Labour members who said it was not Opposition members who chopped the Bill to pieces, and they assured the Minister that they would' give every facility’' in putting the measure through the House. The Bill was read a first time.