RELIEF FOR MORTGAGORS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18848, 10 April 1931, Page 8

RELIEF FOR MORTGAGORS.

Bill, BEFORE BOUSE. DEBATE ON SECOND READING. By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON. April 9. After the second reading of the Earthquake Bill had been agreed to in the House of Representatives to-night, the Prime Minister (Hon. G. W. Forbes) moved the second reading of the Mortgagors Relief Bill. Mr Forbes explained that the measure was framed for the purpose of keeping farmers on the land wherever possible, and would not be put into operation unless it was found to be necessary. It was a well-known fact that many farmers were in a difficulty as a result of the slump, and while many cases had been met in a very reasonable spirit by mortgagees, it was feared that seme might take advantage of the position, and the Bill had been brought down to prevent that. There had been complaints that stock and station agents had called upon farmers to realise on security when stock was at a very low price, but personally he did not think that that would happen where a farmer was doing his job. He knew from personal experience that in many cases it was the farmer and not the stock that was the best security. (Members: “Hear, hear.”). The Bill would give farmers more confidence to carry on than would otherwise be the case before the measure had been brought in. Land Commissioners in various districts had been appointed conciliation commissioners to give assistance to parties to mortgages where adjustments were necessary, and it had been found that their help, as impartial advisers, had been very valuable in arranging cases which might otherwise have been the subject of disagreement. In future, such cases would come under the Bill if it was brought into force, but its provisions would only be brought into force by proclamation, and if found unnecessary, it would not be utilised at all.

Mr C. E. Macmillan (Tauranga) said amendments to the Bill might be necessary, and they would be dealt with in Committee. If a month had to be given for making an application, it would allow stock to depreciate to a great extent, and that possibility would make stock and station agents very cautious about advancing money on stock. He suggested that the time for application for protection should be a week or at most a fortnight in cases where stock was the security. He was of opinion that Magistrates should be given jurisdiction under the Bill to deal with sums up to £IOOO, because that would permit of more expeditious work.

Mi* M. J. Savage (Auckland) complained that the Bill put the onus on a mortgagor who was already in difficulties. The average farmer, who was in difficulties, would not be able to raise funds to set the machinery under the Bill in motion. He had hoped the Government would have gone to the extent of setting up tribunals in districts to hear each case on its merits. There was nothing in the Bill to get enthusiastic about, because the fact that farmers would have to move the machinery of the Supreme Court eliminated most of its value. If the Bill provided a tribunal to which the poorest farmer could gain access, he would be satisfied. It -was not altogether a question of law, but was largely a question of what land could produce, and the best men to decide that would be expert farmers, presided over by a Commissioner of Crown Lands.

Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Egmont) said he was of opinion that the Bill would do a lot of good. It would create a certain amount of mistrust, but would not cause nearly as much trouble as a straight-out order that no mortgagee could realise on his security. He suggested that a Magistrate with two competent assessors, should be allowed to deal with mortgages to a much larger amount than £SOO.

Mr A. Hamilton (Awarua) said there was dire necessity for a measure of the kind to-day, but nothing should be done that would frighten the lending section of the community. The present Bill, for instance, was more appropriate than a general moratorium. It was an honest attempt on the part of the Government to meet its duty. He was not in favour of people going to courts with any difficulties other than legal difficulties. He thought there was a good deal in favour of Mr Savage’s suggestion for a tribunal. He did not suggest that a tribunal should have full powers, but it should have advisory and recommending powers, with a view to a legal document eventually being executed under direction of a Judge.

Mr W. E. Barnard (Napier) said he thought there should be right of appeal to the Supreme Court from decisions of Magistrates. He pointed out that different Magistrates might handle cases differently.

Mr W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) expressed the opinion that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

The Hon. E. A. Ransom said the object of the measure was to give temporary relief that would tide mortgagors over a period of difficulty. He realised that in the case of some farmers it did not unfortunately go far enough, but it would afford assistance to many. It must be remembered that the measure did not apply only to the farming community. It would also assist businesses struggling to carry on, as well as owners of mortgaged homes. The Minister referred to signs of improvement in the markets generally, and said he thought they were justified in fixing the limit of two years for the operation of the Bill. It was not intended to discontinue employing the services of Land Commissioners in negotiating between mortgagor and mortgagee, in fact he anticipated that their services would be utilised more than ever when the Bill became law.

The debate was interrupted by the rising of the House at midnight, till 2.3 G p.m. to-morrow.