THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JULY 27, 1895.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10423, 27 July 1895, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JULY 27, 1895.

One of the most important Bills introduced this session by'the Government is the Family Homes Protection Bill, the object of' which is to enable the owner of land on which he resides to settle the same for the benefit of -his wife and family. The Bill is borrowed from statutes in force in several of the States of America, where its utility has been, of a doubtful character. The abject of the Bill is praiseworthy in intention, but there is little doubt that if passed by the Legislature. it will lead to many abuses, especially in its proposed form. The value of theland proposed to be settled must not exceed .£ISOO, 'and must be unencumbered. The owner must be able 'to pay all his debts without the aid of the land proposed to be settled. Before a settlement under the " Act. can take effect the owner must give public notice of his intention to settle the land,, and any creditor may within six months after the publication of the notice lodge a caveat forbidding registration. No alienation of the land can' take place except in the manner prescribed by the Act. The' owner has power by will to regulate the mode of distribution of the land, and failing a will being left the land devolves on his wife and children at his death. Provision is made that if the owner becomes bankrupt within six months after the date of registration, or makes any assignment for the benefit of his creditors, the settlement may be rescinded. , Moreover, if the owner,, die within-six months of the date of registration and his estate is insufficient for the payment of his .debts and liabilities without recourse to the family.home, the settlement may be rescinded. The Bill appears to us to be a very imperfect measure, and unless amended by the Legislative Council will lead to a good deal of uncertainty and litigation. There is little doubt also tliat settlement under the Act will be resorted to for the purpose oE defrauding creditors, notwithstanding the apparent protection which is extended to them. There seems to be nothing to prevent an owner settling land of the prescribed value and afterwards expending considerable sums in improving it. These improvements may bo at the expense of the owner's creditors, who will be practically unprotected, it seems more than doubtful whether the 'Government have had sufficiently in view the interests of the public, and certain safeguards should have been inserted in the Bill. The dominant idea which the Government had in view appears to be the^protection' of the owner and his family. The Minister for Lands stated that when people found themselves in a position'to settle a home they should be enabled to do so for all time to come; and he added that it was easy for people who at one time were in good circumstances to get into some kind of financial trouble, and so long as they can give security they are pestered by their creditors until they do so. Practically the Minister for Lands wished to protect the owner against himself, but ho evidently overlooked the fact that the owner is not likely to have creditors to any extent unless he has property which' he can give as security. Mr Bell, one of the members for Wellington, raised the question during the debate in the House whether the land settled was to be charged with-death duties, but this question was not satisfactorily answered. It seems to be doubtful under the Bill whether it does ' riot protect the land from the payment of ordinary rates and taxes and other public burdens to the payment of which it should certainly be subject. There is no reason why because an owner settles land it should be exempt: from payment of ordinary taxation incident to the ownership of property, however desirable it might. be to protect it against his ordinary creditors. Moreover it is questionable whether even the limit of £1500 is not too high, although the proposal was made at one time that the limit should be .£SOOO. To allow the owner of land to settle it to the value mentioned in the Bill, and also to give him permission to improve it to an unlimited extent, will in many instances lead to great injustice. In the States of America, where the Homestead Law —similar to the present Bill in many respects —is in force, the limit of value ranges from-£SO up to £500. In some instances the area is also fixed, and is restricted to 160 acres of land in the country and to half an acre of land in the towns. The Government seem to have overlooked the fact that whilst

the land is, protected no protection is extended to the personal property'required to profitably .utilise it. In most of the States of America stock is of a limited value, consisting of horses, cows, and_ other animals used in connection with the .farm, and cannot, be seized by creditors! This protection is extended also to implements necessary to carry on the work of .the farm. The owner whos"e land is protected from his creditors, but who lias no ordinary farm implements and stock to carry it on, will find himself in an unsatisfactory position. It would have been more reasonable had the Legislature restricted the value of the land to be settled to say £500, and extended the protection to stock and implements in the direction we have indicated. We are surprised also that the Government, which have passed so many Acts professedly in the interests of workmen, should not have made some provision in the Bill for their protection. Supposing an owner of land a - year or two after it has been settled employs workmen in erecting a building on or otherwise improving the land, it would be optional with him, if he had no other property, to pay them.. Assuming such a state of circumstances, this surely cannot have been contemplated by the Government. The Bill should "have provided that all wages so incurred should be a charge on the land so settled until they were paid. We have indicated that the Bill, too, will lead to fraud; and whilst the object may be beneficent, experience in the American States shows that it has been greatly abused, and that whilst the owner has been protected he has been able to commit frauds of a very gross character. The novelty of the measure appears' to have captivated some1 of the members of the House, who spoke warmly in support of it on the second redding, but the discussion shows that the Bill has been very imperfectly considered. Dr Newman stated that if the Minister for Lands would look over some of the American and Canadian Acts he would find1 that they were similar in principle to the Bill before the House. But he pointed but that it would be only persons in good circumstances who would be able to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill. Under the present law a large number of settlements of land, we believe, take place, and, assuming the'policy of the Bill to he a wise one, we think that it should be amended so as not to work an injustice to local bodies or the State, and also prevent creditors, such as workmen, who in good faith expend their labour in improving the property, for the owner, being , defrauded. The -member for^llangitata stated that there were so' many things to be said against the machinery of the, Bill that he did not think there were many people who ■would take advantage of its provisions. He pointed out that a person at present could make a settlement of his property, and that it under the Bankruptcy Act time for questioning the settlement were shortened the whole case would be met. -TV does not appear from the speech of the Minister for Lands whether,the Government intend to charge the ordinary duty on the settlement of property similar to that payable in respect 6E ordinary settlements; indeed he does not seem to have considered-the question at all. We have stated that.the Bill in its present state is a very'impel'feci- one, and it has evidently beeii. prepared more in the interest of substantial landowners than of small settlers. We have no doubt it will be carefully considered by the Council, and we hope it will rbe materially amended.