CO129-609-4 Future policy- draft proclamation for moratorium on unsettled debts 24-8-1945 - 22-2-1947 — Page 18

18

debt during the operation of moratorium implies a disposition which unfortunately rarely exists in this hard, practical, mundane world. In any case why should the Moratorium be continued as regards debts owing before the war in respect of which there was no repayment, wholly or in part, during the Japanese occupation?

-

But my

:

I observe that the Government's position is that "it is not possible for this Government to lift the Moratorium until a decision has been reached on Debtor-Creditor Relationships, which is now under consideration in London. I do not deny indeed it is too obvious that it is essential to come to a decision on the Debtor-Creditor Relationships question before the whole of the Moratorium can be lifted.

oint is that this question should have engaged, and no doubt did engage, the serious attention of the local as well as the London authorities at least since the Japanese surrender, which is nearly one year ago, and that all the relevant data must have been placed before the London authorities months ago. Surely mere consideration of a problem with all known facts should not take such a long time. I believe the Big Four Foreign Secretaries have succeeded in solving many complicated international questions within a much shorter time.

I appreciate that in any final solution of a problem of this complexity, absolute justice to all parties can hardly be expected. But surely it is better to come to a decision imperfect though it may be, than to wait indefinitely for a perfect solution.

As regards land, I have never been able to understand the delay in implementing the recommendations of the Law Society for perfecting the transactions put through during the Japanese occupation. I believe a Bill in draft, approved by the Law Society, has been in existence for some considerable time. I deliberately say that I know of no justification for this delay.

As regards shares, here again I must confess I have never been able to understand the necessity or the value of probibiting transactions in shares. As a matter of fact shares change hands daily in the so-called "black-market." But I do say that there is a definite need for some legislation dealing with such questions as loss of register and non-holding of statutory annual meetings, loss of scrips etc., and no such legislation has yet been placed before this Council.

As regards the second paragraph of my motion, I would observe that legislation on the question of Debtor-Creditor Relationships. would appear to be in its nature a financial measure which may alter the existing legal rights acquired under pre-war commercial contracts, and involve the differential treatment of various classes of debtors and creditors. It is, therefore, a matter in which the members of this Council are vitally concerned. If such legislation were to take the form of an enactment by this Council, its members will no doubt be afforded enough time to study its provisions before the Second Reading. But if such legislation should take some other form, then I feel bound to state that, in spite of the urgency of the matter, I deem it ost important from a constitutional point of view, that before the decision of the London authorities on the issues involved are imbodied in any legislation, the members of this Council should first have adequate opportunity to examine any proposed measures. They are matters which affect local property rights and local financial obligations, and they require consideration in the light of local knowledge and their bearing on the local aommunity.