FAIR RENTS BILL DEBATED

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 22, 21 October 1942, Page 6

FAIR RENTS BILL DEBATED

House In Agreement On Principle But Differs On Many Points

OPPOSITION ASKS FOR SHORT DEFERMENT

The greater part of yesterday’s sitting of the House of Repiesentatives was devoted to discussion on the Fair Rents' Amendment Bill. Opposition speakers appealed for postponement till December of all clauses except those extending the duration of the existing legislation till 12 months after the war. They emphasized that many new contentious issues were included in the measure and that those anected by them should have an opportunity to state their case. Government speakers took the view that the need for the legislation was urgent and that there should be no delay in placing it on the Statute Book, lhe Bill was read a second time before the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. today. , , The Statutes Amendment Bill was put through all stages and passed yesterday afternoon.

The difficulty of providing adequate housing in wartime was emphasized by the Attorney-General, Air. Mason, when moving the second reading of the Fair Rents Amendment Bill. He said the whole purpose of the Bill was to see that people who behaved themselves properly as tenants were not ejected or subjected to extortionate rents. The Minister was followed by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Holland, who suggested that the clauses other than those extending the duration of the original legislation should be held over till the December session so that interested parties should have opportunity of considering the Bill.

Mr. Mason said it had to be recognized that there was little prospect of any easing of the position while housing construction was restricted through manpower and material shortages. In those circumstances it would be realized that the legislation was necessary while the war lasted and for a period after it. In the original FailRents Act certain types of places, tints and new houses, were exempted in order to encourage the building activity of that time. But today there was little prospect of new building, and the Bill was very much needed. In wartime things had to ‘be done which would not be done otherwise. Dealing with the Bill in detail, Mr. Mason explained that it was enlarged to cover all houses and places used as dwellings. Under the old legislation it was a question of degree; here there was no question of degree. .Licensed premises were the only exemption. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Holland; Why? ' The Minister: Nobody wants to be bothered by fixing hotel rents. In general hotels are not places of per-

manent residence.

Discussing the provision making tenancy agreements binding on mortgagees, the Minister expressed the opinion that in most cases the clause would be found not unreasonable. In some instances it might fall harshly on the mortgagee, but he thought that in practice it would work out well enough. Tenants With Children. Mr. Mason said that the clause making it an offence to refuse to let to people because they had children was taken from Australian legislation. The problem of how to deal with propertyowners who refused' children was a serious one, and the clause tried to meet the position. He thought that a provision making it an offence for a property-owner to inquire whether a prospective tenant had any children or whether it was intended that a child should live in the house to let was going a. little too far. He therefore intended to move its deletion in the committee stage. In reply to an Opposition member, the Minister said that in case of dispute, a fair rent was arrived at by a magistrate. A definite basis was not laid down by the Bill. The whole idea in the Bill was to prevent rents rising and every rise must be justified. Hardship would of course be taken into account. Mr. Lee (Democratic Labour, Grey Lynn) asked how the Bill would apply in the case of a seaside bach which was let well in the summer and might lie vacant in the off season. The Minister replied that such cases were not specifically mentioned in the Bill. They illustrated one of the difficulties in bringing down regulations to fix rents. The present method worked well enough: He thought it' unnecessary at that stage to go into particular problems. The Bill simply made such adjustments as the war required. Some Control Needed. Mr. Holland said that everyone would agree that in wartime a measure of control was needed. Up to the institution of the Government’s housing programme in 1936 housebuilding was primarily the work of private enterprise financed with State advances. That worked well. He thought the Government was disappointed with the results of its own housing scheme. The Minister of Housing, Mr. Armstrong: Oh, no. The Minister of Supply, Mr. SullL van: There was an enormous amount of leeway to make tip. Air. Holland said that the Opposition agreed with the measure in principle, and only wanted a fair rents Bill that was fair. He thought that the Minister himself was not too happy about the Bill. Mr. Mason (warmly) : That is not correct. Mr. Holland: It is suggested that the Minister lives in a castle in the air. for which there is no means of fixing the rent. (Laughter.) Repeating; that the Opposition wanted only a Bill which was fair all round. Mr. Holland said that every member knew of instances of grave injustice in which people who had let their houses were unable to reoccupy their own property. Mr. Holland said he was pleased to learn that the clause making it a penalty for landlords to inquire whether prospective tenants had children was to be withdrawn. He could not see how its retention could be justified as the State Advances Department asked the same questions when letting houses. Mr. Mason: They ask questions only wilh the object of giving preference to tenants with large families. Mr. Holland said it would be interesting to have a return showing the average number of children living in State houses. The department asked all sorts of questions when letting houses. The new restrictions put on landlords might lead to a large family being allowed to occupy an overcrowded house or even one room.

He suggested that only the clauses extending the principal Act till one

year after the war should be proceeded with, and the remaining clauses held over for consideration in December. The Opposition would co-operate in framing constructive amendments which would make for an improved Bill. The time now at its disposal was too short and no opportunity had been given to study the Bill. He had received many inquiries from outside the House as to what its implications were.

The Prime Minister, Mr. Fraser, said he was prepared to arrange for deferment of the discussion till Thursday if that would meet the Opposition's wishes.

Mr. Armstrong said‘that 80 per cent of the applicants for State houses had fewer than two children and the percentage of large families was small indeed. The housing shortage was so acute the country could not afford to allocate tenants more accommodation than was necessary. He would like to see a measure introduced that would make it compulsory for old and insanitary dwellings to be reconditioned. That would be the most practical way of utilizing the present housing. He believed that 90 per cent, of the landlords would welcome a scheme, whereby the renovation costs could, be done from advances by the State at a low rate of interest. Tenants With Cliildren.

Mr. Endean (Opposition, liemuera) directed attention to the clause dealing with owners who refused to let houses to tenants with children. It stated that it placed the burden of proof on defendant. “As I understand the principles of British law it is incumbent on the Crown to prove its cases in the courts. There are few exceptions to this principle and the clause is inconsistent with our preconceived ideas of British justice.” He hoped the House would pause before bringing that section of the law into being. The whole clause seemed to violate the primary principles of pt’operty-ownership. A weakness of the Bill was that there were no fixed principles on which magistrates could adjudicate and fix rents. This was a defect which should be remedied as soon as possible. Mr. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago) said that a very large number of people were affected by the Bill and .that no one would be seriously prejudiced if the new provisions were held over till December. In the meantime representations could lie made to a Parliamentary committee by those Concerned. No one prejudiced their case by hearing the other side. He knew that a good case could be made out for the Bill, but on the other hand much could be said against some of the far-reaching.provisions it contained. People whose capital was invested in dwellings should be given the opportunity of being heard. Discussing the clause making tenancies of dwelling-houses binding on mortgagees, Mr. Bodkin said the effect of this, would be to discredit this type of security. He thought .it would be found jn actual practice that the operation of the clause would tend to make it more difficult to borrow money to build a home. Hardship on Servicemen. Mr. Acland (Opposition, Temuka) said the Bill might unwittingly operate harshly against men discharged from war service. In many cases when the husband joined the armed forces the wife had given up the home and gone to live with friends. It seemed the Bill would prevent those men from resuming occupancy of their houses and they, would have to go before a magistrate and seek to prove greater hardship than the tenants to whom the houses had been let. That might be a difficult matter and the men who had served their country would be penalized. He hoped the Minister would take some steps to avert this contingency. Defending the clause preventing pro-perty-owners from refusing tenancy to people with children, Mr. Combs (Government, Wellington Suburbs) asked which were the more important, house' properties or children. The child was an asset which the State must place first, hence the provision in the Bill. The only way in which the high rent situation could be corrected was by the building of sufficient houses to meet the demand. This could not be done in wartime and in the interim tenants must be protected. The Rev. F. L. Frost (Government, New Plymouth) expressed the lioiw that the Bill would not be held up. If experience disclosed the need for improvements these could be made later on. No irreparable damage could be done by giving the Bill a trial. Appealing for deferment of the new provisions till December, Mr. Broadfoot (Opposition, Waitomo) said there were rights and wrongs both of tenants and landlords. No harm could be done by giving people who wished to make representations the opportunity to do so. A weakness in the legislation was the absence of definite regulations for the directions of magistrates set the task of determining a fair rent. Rent Based on Day’s Pay.

Mr. Atmore (Independent, Nelson) said that it had been, laid down years ago. as an infallible axiom that not more than one day’s wages should go in rent. Today many workers were working up to dinner-time on Wednesday, or two and a half days, to meet the landlord’s demads. The need for the Bill was most urgent, and he hoped the Government would put'it through. In Russia the highest rent that could be charged was 10 per cent, of a man’s income. The Bill was negesasry, for there could be no stability without homes. He wtts pleased the Government had rectified the omission in the previous legislation and brought in fiats. Flats in a country like New Zealand were a most undesirable form of home for a family, and it was unfair to ask returned soldiers to go into them. The arguments of the Opposition for a postponement of the Bill had not been supported by evidence, said Air. Richards (Government, Roskill). It was impossible to define a fair rent in a Bill. All that could l>e laid down was the principle for the guidance of landlords and tenants and the magistrate when they could not agree. Mr. Doidge (Opposition, Tauranga)

said it was ridiculous for Government members to deprecate fiats when the State was building them, and charging high rents. The old-age pensioners in Auckland were asked to pay 18/- a week for small lints. The housing conditions in New Zealand today were scandalous after seven years of a Socialist Government. The State had only built 10,425 houses up to the end of 1941. The dearth of houses was chiefly due to the high costs and building methods being too slow. It could only be relieved by the Government encouraging private building by providing cheap money and lower costs. If there had not been a slavish adherence by the Government to the 40 hotir week policy there would have been more houses today.

“Will the Minister tell uh if it is true that a man with a large family and a small income has little chance of getting a State house, and can only get one if he has an assured income?” asked Mr. Doidge.

.Mr. Mason (nentedly) : What is the use of talking rubbish like that? Mr. Doidge: If the .Minister will come down from the clouds lie might see those things. Mr. Mason: There te uo mother earth about that statement. Housing Conditions. The Minister of Labour, Mr. Webb, said he was amazed at the tone of the speech of the .member for Taurauga. The housing in some parts of New Zealand was a disgrace, and gave cause for alarm. Thousands of people were going without necessary food in order to pay the exorbitant rente demanded Mr. Bolson (Opposition, Stratford): After seven years of Labour. The Minister: We had to take builders off housing work in Wellington to send them to Taranaki to build accommodation for cheese workers. Some of the fiats in Wellington, said Mr. Webb, were really fine homes. The Bill was overdue, and there was no interference with people who wanted to build their own homes. These people could get up to 90 per cent, advance from the State for that, purpose. The harmful effect of hat-’ty passing of the Bill on private building was stressed by Mr. Sullivan (Opposition, Bay of Plenty), who appealed for further consideration of the measure before it reached the Statute Book. The Bill was read a second time after the Attorney-General had intimated his intention to explain during the committee stage points raised by various members.

IRON ORE CLAYS Production Of Paint

Statements that the provision in the Statutes Amendment Bill for the use of iron ore from lands not subject to the Mining Act for. purposes other than the manufacture of iron and steel did not go far enough, were made by Opposition members during the second reading discussion.

People who wished to develop the minerals of the Dominion were being hampered to a great extent, said Mr. Broadfoot (Opposition, Waitomo). The 1937 Act had absolutely prohibited the mining of iron ore by private individuals or companies. It had been found that certain clays were used for other purposes than the production of iron and steel, such as the manufacture of paint, and those using them were committing breaches of the law. This had been remedied by an amendment in 1941 which gave the Minister of Mines authority to grant licences for this purpose. Mr. Broadfoot contended that this did not go far enough, and that if it were not compulsory to secure a licence many minerals would be developed in New Zealand and thus save importation. The Minister of Industries and Commerce, Mr. Sullivan, said it was obvious that the clause was framed- to assist in the exploitation of minerals for purposes other than the commercial production of iron and steel. The Government was trying to meet the situation, but Mr. Broadfoot wanted it done without any restrictions. Mr. Sullivan said he hoped the day would not be far distant when New Zealand would have an adequate iron and steel industry, blit Mr. Broadfoot apparently wanted to exploit the deposits for other purposes. Interposing, Mr. Broadfoot said that all he wanted was that those minerals which had a trace of iron* in them and were consequently subject to control under the Act should be made more readily available for exploitation. Mr. Sullivan replied that where lhe iron and steel industry was not involved he had no objection to having another look into the matter along the Ipies suggested. The clause was agreed to.

- RIGHT OF APPEAL

Decisions Of Bureau Of Industry

Approval of Hie clause in the Statutes Amendment Bill providing for the appointment of an industrial efficiency appeal authority to determine appeals from decisions of the Bureau of Industry was expressed by members of the Opposition during the second reading debate on the Bill. The original industrial efficiency legislation provided for (lie hearing of these appeals by the Minister of Industries and Commerce.

Mr. Broadfoot (Opposition, Wuilomo) said lie was glad to se (lie change in policy made by the Government. In the original Act there was no right of appeal other than to the .Minister in charge. The O]>i»osition had always held that it was wrong for the .Minister to be the final court of appeal. The liojie that some res:i>oiisible authority such as a judge or a man with the qualifications of a judge would be appointed to preside over the appeal authority was expressed by Air. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago). The clause made a decided improvement in Hie original legislation and would give much greater confidence, he said. “One of the mistakes of the present Government was in taking away from the i)X?ople their right to aptieal to a judicial tribunal,” said Mr. Endea'.i (Opposition. lieniuern). He added that lie was glad to see what the Opposition had fought for Lild been recognized. There would now be a proper constituted appeal tribunal free and independent of any control.

SUGAR FOR JAM-MAKING

A statement us to the likelihood of a special ration of sugar being made available to housewives who are accustomed to making jam for home use was sought by Air. Goosman (Opposition, Waikato) in notice of a question to the Minister of Supply, Air. Sullivan. In a note to his question. Air. Goosman said it was considered that the issue of appropriate supplies to approved applicants, based on the size of families, would result in the prevention or reduction of waste of certain kinds of fruits, economy in labour and transport and also tin, us jars already on hand would take the place of tins made from imported materials and cheaper jam.

MEAT BOARD

Electoral College System Criticized The electoral college system of election used by the Meat Board was criticized by Air. Dickie (Opposition, I’atea) during the second reading debate on the Statutes Amendment Bill. A clause in Hie Bill provides for representation on the board of producers engaged in the dairy industry. Air. Diekie said that lie would have liked to see provision made for a more democratic method of election to the .Meal Board. Under the present "stupid college system” once a person was on the board he was there for life. He hoped before long that the ward system of election would be adopted as was used for election to the Dairy Board. Representatives of producers of beef, pork or veal could not be elected Io the Meat Board, and there should •be a decent system of election so that there was a hoard truly representative of the producers. The cost of the Aleat Board was also referred to by Mr. Dickie. He said that the election expenses of members of Parliament were restricted to £2OO, but nearly £7OO of the meat producers’ money was used to elect a member of the Aleat Board.

A suggestion that the Alinister of Defence consider the issue of a distinguishing badge for men who have served in the armed forces and who have been discharged was made by the Rev. F. L. Frost (Government, New Plymouth), in notice of a question. Air. Frost added dial a number of men, even men who had served overseas, were suffering annoyance from people who had sent them anonymous letters and white feathers in the belief that these men were avoiding military service.