Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 15 March 1932


Mr PATERSON (Gippsland) . - Apparently there is one aspect of the amendment foreshadowed by the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. McNicoll) that is not understood by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James). As I understand the proposal, it means that while £40 may be the maximum to be expended on repairs by the commissioner, the soldier who has vacated his home may be sued for only the amount of his equity. If he has no equity in a property, the Commissioner will not be able to sue for anything spent on repairs. The returned soldier does not stand to lose anything by the amendment; in certain circumstances, he may gain something. Obviously, if a home were not repaired, it is practically certain that no sale would be effected, consequently there would bc no equity for the soldier. On the other hand, if a certain amount were expended to make a property more saleable, the soldier could not be debited with more than the amount of his equity in it. Actually there there might be a balance over and above the amount owing to the commission, and this would be paid to him.







Suggest corrections