FAIR RENTS

Evening Star, Issue 24331, 21 October 1942, Page 2

FAIR RENTS

DERATE ON CONTROVERSIAL MEASURE VARYING VIEWS ON CHILD CLAUSE (Special.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 21. .uoving the second reading of the Fair Keats Amendment Bui in tile House or uepresentuuves yesterday, tue Attorney-General, Mr Mason, said its purpose was to see that peop.e wiio oeauved tiiemselves were not ejected and were not subjected to extortionate rentals.

i-ieaiing with the clause prohibiting the refusal to let a dwelling liouse to an applicant with chi.clren, air Mason tins was taken from Australian legislation, in the committee stage, However, he proposed to ask the House to eliminate tue part oi tae clause making it an olieuce to inquire trout aiu prospective tenant whether he had auv cnilurea or wuether it was intended that a chilcj should live in the dwelling house if it were let to the tenant. In his opinion that went a little too far. He had intended that that provision should be dropped from the Bill, but m tjie burry that sometimes occurred Ui regard to legislation it had not been eliminated.

-Mr W. Sullivan (Bay of Plenty): Would the Minister explain the basis upon which lair rent is arrived at?

Mr Mason said that the fair rent was arrived at by a magistrate. A definite basis was not laid down. The whole idea of the Bill was to prevent rents rising. Every increase made had to bo justified. Magistrates, in practice, operated on what might be called imaginary regulations. They had their standards, and ho thought that in practice regulations would not help.

Mr Goosmau; What about seaside cottages? In some parts of the year they commanded high rentals, and at other times only a low rent. Mr Mason confessed that he did not know how the' magistrates dealt with that problem. There was nothing to prevent them from deciding upon different rentals for different times of the year.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Holland, said every member of tho House would agree that during war time a measure of control was necessary, but they wanted to see that the best provision was made so that they had a Fair Rents Act that was fair. He thought it was obvious that the Attorney-General was not very happy about .the Bill.

Mr Mason: Oh, no, that is not correct. . Mr Holland retorted that the .Attor-ney-General had said that one part had been left in in error. That indicated the hurry with which the Bill had been prepared and that it had not been given the attention it deserved. Up to tiie time the Government had embarked on its housebuilding policy the system of State advances loans and building by private enterprise had worked well together. The Government had thought it would increase the number of houses built by a system of State control, but the results hud been disappointing. The Deputy-Leader of the House, .Mr Sullivan: 1 don’t accept that. Mr Holland said that the impression on tho housing problem had not been as great as was anticipated by the Government by a long way. Every time a restriction oil house building had been introduced since : 1936 house building had fallen’ away in one' direction, even if it had been taken up in another. To-day he thought it was fair to say that private house building hardly existed at all. It was necessary that they should measure the advantages of control with the disadvantages of fewer houses. NOVEL PROVISIONS. The Bill introduced some new and novel provisions. Mr Holland continued. An important principle was that the Bill denied the right of an owner to select his own tenant. Mr Richards; .\'o. it doesn’t. When Mr Holland referred to the restrictions placed on the private owner as compared to the State, the AttorneyGeneral said that questions were asked by the Housing Department of prospective tenants in order that .preference could be given to people with the largest families and those who were in the greatest need of procuring accommodation. Mr Holland said that under the new proposals an owner of u dwelling woulu not be able to refuse a tenant if he had four or five children, and even though all the children might use the same room. He had received a communication from Auckland saying that that was the interpretation placed on the clause. Even with the elimination of the sub-clause making it an offence for a person to inquire from a prospective tenant whether he had children, another sub-clause still stood, making it an offence to refuse a tenancy to a tenant on the ground that it was intended that a child should live iu the house. The whole of the section dealing with children required reconsideration. Fie suggested that the original Act be extended until one year after the termination of the war, and that the whole measure be reviewed when the House reassembled in December

We are in general agreement with the Bill.” lie added, “ but we have not had sufficient time to look at it thoroughly.’ When the House met again he would like to see the amendments introduced in a consolidated measure. MINISTER CRITICAL. The Minister of Housing. Mr Armstrong. had some criticism to make ox tiie Bill. He said a regulation forbidding inquiries about children would operate against the .State Advances Corporation. in his opinion the Bill could have laid down a definite basis on' which the magistrates could operate in fixing the fair rent. He could suggest half a dozen amendments whicii lie thought would vastly improve the Bilk

Diving his support to the Bill, Mr Meachen said he was convinced that good security of tenure and a rental that was not financially embarrassing was in the nation’s interests. Mr Fndean criticised 1 the lack of fixed principles in the measure which a court could adopt in dealing with a fair_ rents application. If there was not uniformity of justice it was not in accordance with the judicial system. The clause relating to children seemed to him to violate the primary principles of property ownership. Mr Fndean also criticised the provision requiring a defendant to prove that refusal to let a house was for some reason other than that it was intended that a child should live in it. It was generally incumbent on the Crown to prove its case, and even under civil jurisdiction in most cases the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff’. It was inconsistent with preconceived ideas of British justice and tradition that the burden of proof should be transferred to the defendant, Mr Combs said there were houses in Wellington where the rental absorbed half of a tenant’s income, with the rc-

suit tbat calls hgd to be made on Social Security to balance the family budget. The Bill was a bold step forward. SERVICEMEN’S GRIEVANCE.

Mr Aoluiid said that he felt that an injustice was being done to toe men in the services. Men were aireauy returning from overseas, and would continue to return. Many of those men had their own homes, and because they could not keep them going on service pay they had let tenants in. Linder the Bill the only way they could regain possession was by proving greater Hardship than the tenant in possession. As the tenant might have increased his family the soldier would bo at a disadvantage, and would have to stay out of his dome until one year after the war was over. If a man was prepared to leave his home to fight for his country, he should be able to resume possession without having to go before a magistrate when he returned. Mr Richards said human values were placed first under the Bill, and property values second, thus reversing the old tradition that property was more sacred than life. There were men working two days a week to pay a week’s rent. The days of racketeering were to go. “Some men are working for two and a-half days a week to satisfy the landlord's demands,” said Mr Atmore. hi Russia the.system was that the worker should pay only 11 per cent, of his earnings for rent. HOMES WITH GARDENS.

Mr Doiclge said it was desirable to have homes for the people with gardens, rather than Hats. The Government was building fiats and letting them at high rentals. In Grey Lynn old-age pensioners were paying 18s a week for small fiats. * Mr Coleman; Less 2s Gd a week.

, Mr Doidgo said the housing position represented a public scandal. After seven years of a socialist Government in office the State had only built 10,425 houses up to 1941. There was no need to stampede the Bill through the House. The Leader of the Opposition had made a fair request that the Bill should he postponed until the December session. There were slums in Auckland and Wellington as bad as those in London. Liverpool, and Glasgow. Under State control the situation could not be coped with. The methods were too slow, and the costs too high. Many more houses could have been built before the war, but progress had been retarded owing to the 40-hour week policy. “ A man with a large family and a small income has mighty little chance of getting a State house,” Mr Doidge continued, “ but a man with a good job and a good salary has.” The Attorney-General. Mr Mason: What is the good of talking rubbish like that? I think we are entitled to resent statements that have no foundation in fact. , BARRIER OF WAR. The Minister of Labour. Mr Webb, declared that it was nonsensical of the member for Taurunga to make a party speech over housing difficulties, which were due to the demands of the war on building material and the workers. He had personal experience of distressing cases in Wellington. Owing to the scarcity of houses there were thousands of people paying so much in rent that they actually had to go without sufficient food. The housing problem was most acute in Wellington and Auckland because of the great industrial developments in those cities. The Bill passed its second reading, the Minister stating he .would answer points raised in- the committee stages. SECRET SESSION TO-MORROW (Special. 1 WELLINGTON. Oct. 2t. The Government intends to-complete consideration of the Fair Bents Amendment Bill to-day. This will clear the way for the secret session to-mor-row, iii which the man power problem will be discussed, in addition to a review of the latest in the war situation by the Prime Minister.