TENANTS' PROTECTION

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 54, 1 September 1926, Page 10

TENANTS' PROTECTION

RENT RESTRICTION LAW

DISCUSSION IN LEGISLATIVE

COUNCIL

AN INTERESTING DIVISION.

The amendment inserted in tho Kent Restriction Bill by the House oE Representatives at Monday's sitting, postponing the lapsing of the tenants' protection legislation from Ist March until Ist August, 1927, was very nearly thrown out by the Legislative Council yesterday. A number of Councillors expressed themselves as strongly opposed to any further extension of the Act. Tho Eight Hon. Sir Robert Stout said they had to consider what the effect of tho legislation had been in tho past ami what it would be in the future. The effect in the past had been to prevent people from investing in house building. While the Rent Restriction Act had been in operation there had been less building in proportion to the population than ever before. . It had discouraged the building of houses for letting purposes, and those with money to invest had been done an injustice. Ho thought it would have been better if it had been laid down that all letting of houses in towns should be for not less than two or throe months, and that no one was to be ejected except at two or three months' notice, in order to give them time to leave the house and find anothor. People should be encouraged to invest in house building, and there should be some stability of household tenure.

SAFEGUARDING THE TEW. The Hon. A. S. Malcolm regretted the appearance of the Bill. It had been predicted before the Act was passed that it would result in a house shortage. Surely it was better to pay a considerable rent for a' house than not to be able to secure a house at all, a condition which the legislation had brought about. The Bill gave concessions to the few and' safeguarded them while everybody else had to pay the market price. In the interests of the peoplo who were selling houses he hoped the legislation would soon be done away with. The Hon. G. "Witty said the same old cry would bo raised year after year for the discontinuance of the legislation. Last year in the House it had been promised definitely that the Act should lapse this year.

Other speakers exprosscd similar views.

The Hon. W. "W. Snodgrass contended that while the Bill had been in operation there had actually been more building than before.

"I have not seen any reason during the last two or three years," said the Hon. W. Earnshaw, "why this Bill should remain on the Statute Book.

. . . I believe it has had the effect in "Wellington of keeping up rents above what they should be." Under the provision which fixed the rental at 7 per cent, of the capital value the landlords of some of the wretched dwellings on Te Aro Flat, erected on land worth three times as much as the houses themselves, would bo able to raise the rent. The Bill would thus benefit the landlord rather than the tenant.

The Hon. G. J. Garland said there were other people but the tenant to be considered. Ho would like to see the legislation lapso for twelve months. If necessary another Act could then be passed next session.

The Hon. J. B. Gow said tho greatest service those who protested against the Bill could do to New Zealand was to •vote against it and he hoped they would do so.

The Kent Bostrictioti Act, said the Hon. E. W. Alison, should never have been put on tho Statute Book. It had inflicted much hardship upon landlords and had discouraged building. If it had not been for the State Advances the housing position would be even worse.

If the Act was continued in operation, said the Hon. H. L. Michel, landlords would become as extinct as the moa. COMPROMISE OBJECTED TO. The Leader of the Council (tho Hon. Sir Hoaton Ehodes) said the Government wished to terminate the legislation, but as there was opposition, in the House of Representatives to its discontinuance, in March next, the date of effect of the termination of the Act had been altered to Ist August, as a compromise.

The second reading was carried on tho voices.

In the Committee stage the Hon. Colonel Smith proposed an amondmont reinstating the date Ist March.

The Loader said he was sorry that on account of the promise given by the Minister in the House he could not accept the amendment. The Minister had promised to personally look into the possibility of hardship.

After some discussion the amendment was taken to a division, which resulted in level voting, 14-all, and the Chairman of Committees gave his vote against the amendment. The division list was as follows:—For the. amendment: Alison, Carr, Gow, Hall-Jones, Lang, MacGregor, Malcolm, Michel, Mitchelson, Smith, Stewart, Stout, Thomson, Witty.

Against the amendment: Ehodes, Clark, Earnshaw, Fleming, Garland, Guthrie, Hawke, M'lntyre, Moore, Eeed, Scott, Sinclair, Snodgrass, Weston.

The Bill was reported with a technical amendment, read the third time, and passed.