THE MORTGAGORS AND LESSEES REHABILITATION ACT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23599, 8 September 1938, Page 17

THE MORTGAGORS AND LESSEES REHABILITATION ACT

TO THE EDITOR

Sir, —The letter written to your columns by Mr Berkeley recalls to me the weaknesses and administration of the Mortgagors and Lessees Rehabilitation Act. The purpose of this Act primarily was only or purely the rehabilitation of farmer applicants on their property and the adjustment of mortgages to the true productive capacity of the land based on a schedule of stabilised prices The whole Act was changed through the influence of vested interests and directly by means of; the legal profession into a meaning of bankruptcy proceedings, and clearance of liabilities. This was entirely foreign to the original spirit and wording of the Act. At the period at which the Act was passed for consideration I expressed to the Minister the grave and vital necessity for a State method of financing applicant farmers, as otherwise no evicted farmer could be successfully rehabilitated. The force of my deductions has been proved by so many bewildered and, unsuccessful mortgagor applicants. The weaknesses of the Act are:—(l) Administration by those who were prejudiced against the Government of Labour and to any of its legislation; (2) legal misconstruction of the spirit and letter of the Rehabilitation Act, subtly transforming it instead into a Bankruptcy Act; (3) maintenance of stock mortgages and first mortgages on land by financial interests at the expense and elimination of the claims of private and secondary mortgages; (4) lack of provision for evicted farmers and relief applicants, whereby the stock firm must compulsorily maintain the applicant, or failing to do so, provision by the State of rural finance for farm stock and plant. The Government must provide a rural bank or rural credits for the farmers, or. forfeit their co-operation. Unquestionably it will provide the former, and the power of the stock firm will be destroyed.—l am. etc.. * ,T. B. Birtles. Dunedin, September 6.

TO THE EDITOR Sir.—li is evident that Captain C. S. J. Berkeley is desirous of giving the applicants for relief anotner round in the Otago Mortgage Adjustment Commission. Mr Berkeley's intentions may be of the very best. Nevertheless I think he is on the wrong track. I think the Government is to be commended upon having made this Act o final adjustment of mortgages, etc. I agree that there are many cases of hardship amongst the applicants. There are also many such cases on the other side also. The Government appointed three capable men to hear evidence in each case, and I have no doubt that every consideration was given to both sides of each case. As a safeguard to any mistake that might be made, there was also a court of appeal set up to review the evidence of the dissatisfied parties. Surely after applicants went before two competent tribunals it is superfluous to reopen the whole question. In a great many cases neither party is satisfied with the finding of the commission.

My experience is that the cases settled voluntarily have given the most satisfaction. A great many more cases could have been settled in this way. and thus have greatly reduced the work of the commission and the expense to the country. It is pleasing to note that Mr Mason the Minister in Charge of this Act, does appreciate the good work done by the Otago Adjustment Commission. I have had some experience before the commission as a witness, and I fully appreciate the heavy responsibility placed upon the shoulders of its members. —I am, etc., Alex. Renton. Balclutha. September 7.

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —In comparing the amounts written off private mortgages, with the comparatively small amount of reduction of Government rents and interest allowed in regard to the adjustment of rural mortgages, it would be interesting to know just how much money was legally filched from women. Of course,

it was quite an easy thing for the commissions to do this, for they knew that women, just because they were women, must hold their peace and tamely submit. I have in mind two cases, and I am sure there are hundreds of others. A wife has helped her husband with her little all on to a small farm after the war. She has toiled at cows, etc., with him from 5 a.m., just as all the rest of the wives about her did, and though the going was hard, they managed to pay their way and provide for their little ones. Eventually the slump came, but they struggled on, every penny 1 return going to pay rent and interest to the Government so that they could keep a roof over their children. Then this wonderful commission came along, and the husband duly appeared. What happened? Did the commission grant a reduction of rent and interest? Hardly. Here is a woman with a small security, what right has she to a few pounds? Wipe it out," and the commission did so. Verily is it not a case of fools rushing in where angels would fear to tread, or is it that the commissioners took a Puckish delight in what they did? Is that woman going to help to keep up dairy production when she knows that if. and when, Mrs Farmer No. 2 takes her place, as so often happens, her children will be turned out to fend for themselves without that little bit of help from their mother, which their father will be unable to give because of the new and higher standard of living for which he wili probably have to provide. Another case is that of a single woman who has cared for aged parents, her brothers and sisters being married and in homes of their own. In the course of time she is left with the old farm, which, with the help of a working manager, provided her with a home and living. Then the slump came; for a time she is able, by being herself shepherd, as well as housekeeper, ’to caryr on until her health broke down, when she was forced to sell the home, leaving her money at interest. When the purchaser went before the commission, did it give him help from the Government? No, it wiped out his indebtedness to the woman, and now she, a middle-aged woman, broken in health, has to live on her “in-laws,” or, when she is able, work at light housework for a mere pittance. Are we so very far removed from Bolshevism after all? Is it any wonder Mip Bernice Shackieton enthused over a “man” when, if she is a frequenter of the parliamentary gallery, she must have been fed up with the paucity of manly traits exhibited there towards women.—l am, etc., Inquirer.