McGRUER ESTATE BILL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 89, Issue 277, 23 November 1945, Page 3

McGRUER ESTATE BILL

AMENDED MEASURE WILL BE ACCEPTABLE SUBMISSION NEXT MONDAY (Special) Parliament Bldgs, Nov. 22. The strong hostility which would have been shown in the House of Representatives to the McGruer Estate Bill has been completely overcome by the amendments made in the measure by the Select Committee. These have been already published. The committee’s report was considered and approved in the House to-day. This will enable the Bill eventually to pass all its stages when it is submitted in amended form. It is expected that the Bill will be submitted to the House of Representatives for the second reading next Monday. Mr. R. W. McKeen, chairman of the Select Committee, in moving that its report be adopted, stated that the committee was not prepared to recommend the House to pass the measure in its original form. It was felt that it was not in a position to make a decision on the statements made by petitioner, though it was not casting any doubts on his veracity. They felt, however, that it was proper that the statements should run the gauntlet of a Court. Therefore the Bill had been recast, giving petitionei a full opportunity of a hearing under the Family Protection Act unfettered by any legal difficulties such as the fact that the estate had legally been distributed and that no Court, would normally reopen such an application after a lapse of 22 years. The committee was advised that if the Court had looked at Petitioner’s application at the time of testator’s death this might have operated unfairly against petitioner. Therefore the amended Bill authorised the Court, to look at. subsequent developments. He wished to thank Mr. T. Clifton Webb (Opp., Kaipara), who had greatly assisted the committee by suggesting a solution of the problem. Mr. Webb remarked that he had felt it his duty to place any legal knowledge he possessed at. the disposal of the House. He felt that in its original form the Bill was not acceptable, and had so informed the solicitor to the petitioner, telling him that if it was proposed to make a direct grant from the testators of the estate the Bill would be strongly contested. Such a proposal was more than the House was justified in accepting without definite proof, as distinct from the uncorroborated statements of petitioner. Until those statements passed the scru tiny of a tribunal, Parliament, added Mr. Webb, was omnipotent, but it should exercise such powers with a great degree of caution. “In this case,’’ concluded Mr. Webb, “we would have been virtually committing a breach of trust if without having the statements properly scrutinised, we had passed the Bill in its original form. It has been entirely recast.” Mr. Webb added that he believed that if an application had been made by petitioner at the proper time the law might have operated harshly against him, looking at the position o" the estate at that time, because unless the Court could have looked at what happened subsequently it might have held that the provision made for petitioner at the date of his father’s death was apparently sufficient.

“The Bill,” concluded Mr. Webb, “would have had my uncompromising hostility in its original form, but now it has my whole-hearted support.” Mr. J. B. Cotterill (Govt., Wanganui), the member in charge of the Bill, said the previous speaker had made it clear to him that he would oppose the original Bill to the uttermost. Parliament would not turn itself into an institution for the rewriting of wills, or it would throw itself open to a flood of such applications. The Bill as amended was quite acceptable to petitioner and his legal advisers.

Mr. R. M. Algie (Opp., Remuera) expressed the hope that, the House would pass the Bill which it could do quite happily in the amended form. It was popularly assumed that a citizen had a time-honoured right to devise his property as he thought fit, but he quoted high legal authorities to show that in all civilised countries the full right of testamentary disposition was controlled. He congratulated the Select Committee on performing its difficult task in a snlendid manner.

Mr. H. G. R. Mason, AttorneyGeneral, remarked that as charitable trusts were involved the House would cxnect him to express an opinion. He believed the arrangement proposed was entirely reasonable and worthy of the support of the House. The report of the Select Committee was agreed to.