MORTGAGORS AND LESSEES

Southland Times, Issue 22993, 12 September 1936, Page 8

MORTGAGORS AND LESSEES

Rehabilitation Bill

MEASURE CRITICIZED BY MR FORBES

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, September 11. The view that the “sudden death principle” adopted in the Mortgagors and Lessees’ Rehabilitation Bill might result in grave difficulties and even, in instances, of injustice, was expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes) when the second Teading debate on the Bill was resumed in the House of Representatives to-day. “The Bill contains most of the provisions of similar legislation passed by the previous Government,” said Mr Forbes, “but there have been some changes in the way of alterations and additions which, in my opinion, are far from improving the position. Under the old Act there was a period of a stayorder by which a farmer was continued on his farm, without any disturbance, for a testing period of five years. In dealing with the position we were certain that that was the wisest course to adopt. The creditors were assured of a just share of whatever the farm produced and, at the same time, the farmer was given an adequate breathingspace with reasonable living expenses to prove his own worth and the productivity of his farm. That position is to go. Instead, we are to have adjustments based on factors to be determined by the Government. It arranges its marketing scheme and its guaranteed price scheme in the hope of a continued buoyancy in prices and says it will have mortgages adjusted on that basis no matter what it costs to bolster up its prices.” The Minister of Lands (the Hon. F. Langstone) : That will suit the farmer. Mr Forbes: This is not a question of what will suit the farmer, but of what will suit the country. It is a question of how much the country can stand. Position of Mortgagees. Tire men who had come under the stay order scheme, Mr Forbes continued, had generally been perfectly satisfied. They found themselves free of financial worries and with thenposition fixed for five years their future, after the expiration of that period, depended on their own efforts. Even if they went off their land there was provision for compensation. All that had been changed and the principle of “sudden death” was to be restored. Under the Bill no consideration was to be given to the difficulties of mortgagees. Some of them depended on their mortgage investments for their livelihood and, if they were to have investments arbitrarily overhauled, cases of extreme hardship might easily arise. At present it appeared that their only recourse would be to petition Parliament and the Government would be well advised to include in the Bill some provision to allow consideration of such cases.

“All applications for adjustment have got to be made by December 31,” Mr Forbes continued. “Then the Adjustment Commissions and the Court will get to work. It seems that the period of dealing with applications will be very prolonged. Up to last year there were 14,869 applications for reliefunder the previous Government’s legislation and I should say that that number would be even larger by now. It will be necessary to appoint a large number of Commissions if all these applications are to be dealt with in a reasonable time. It must be remembered that in many instances business will be held up until these applications have been heard. Commissions are to be given greater powers than they have ever had before. They will have the right to write down capital and that has always been looked on, in the past, as a matter only for the highest Court in the land. I do not say that that power should not be given, but it requires the appointment of the best and most capable persons to Commissions in order to give a sense of real confidence. “The adjustment of mortgages is no light problem,” Mr Forbes continued. “We did not earn the gratitude of mortgagees in our efforts to tackle the position and this Bill is not going to earn the present Government any further gratitude from that quarter.”