The Press Tuesday, November 22, 1927. A Socialistic Bill.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19164, 22 November 1927, Page 10

The Press Tuesday, November 22, 1927. A Socialistic Bill.

During the war Parliament enacted an Act restricting the amount of rent that landlords might charge the tenants of their dwellings. This Act—the Rent Restriction Act—was renewed from time to time, and in the earlier part of the present session a Bill was introduced to provide for a continuance of the restrictions. The Legislative Council rejected the Bill on the motion for the second reading, but last week it was reintroduced in the Council with an amendment providing that where a landlord has entered into a binding contract for the sale of the freehold of a dwelling owned by him he shall be entitled to apply to a Magistrate for an order for possession. This new Bill was accepted by the Council, after a discussion in the course of which Sir Francis Bell declared that the situation of the poorer classes was "appallingly" bad and that "in no year could it have been "so unsafe to remove the restrictions "as in the present year." When the original Act was passed there was certainly no intention that it should become a permanent part of the law. It was to be allowed to expire at the first favourable opportunity. Nearly ten years have passed since the war came to an end, and still this inherently unjust violati&n of the rights of property owners is the law of the land. It is doubtful whether the restrictions have contributed much to ease the difficulties of the poorer classes, because it has operated against investment in house property. That it is unfair to property owners is obvious, for there is no stronger reason for limiting rents than for limiting the price of clothing or boots or food. Sir Francis Bell explained that the Committee which had been considering the Bill had been influenced by the requests of Charitable Aid Boards, which feared that if the restrictions were removed they would be saddled with ihe burden of increased demands for assistance in the payment of rent. Why the owners of houseproperty only should .be asked to bear a burden that ought to be borne by taxpayers in general Sir Francis Bell did not explain. He simply took the line that economic principles must go by the board. The continuance of the restrictions, he said, might be illogical, " but it was expedient, and there were " many cases in which the Government "or Parliament was bound for the "moment to be guided rather by expediency than by strict logic." Nobody is likely to deny this, but it is absurd to plead, temporary expediency in defence of a measure which the Government and Parliament could have, and should have, got rid of any time during the past ten years. The time for pleading expediency, that is to say, expired long ago. Next year, no doubt, Parliament will be asked to renew the restrictions until 1930. The Act is an excellent example of the modem politician's delusion that social happiness can be achieved, and the fundamental laws of social life circumvented, by Socialistic legislation, and especially by that kind of Socialistic legislation which amounts to the confiscation of one man's property for the benefit of other people. The Government, it would appear, is not likely—in this case, at any rate —to be moved by any appeal to resist and combat this delusion, for Sir Francis Bell, in winding up the debate, said, according to one report, that he is "not ashamed of being called a " Socialist." If this is the feeling of the Government, the outlook for the Dominion, which is suffering increasing injury from Socialistic policies, is black indeed.