FAIR RENTS

Evening Star, Issue 24332, 22 October 1942, Page 4

FAIR RENTS

SOLDIERS TO HAVE RE-POSSESSION OF HOMES AMENDING BILL PASSED (Special.) WELLINGTON, October 22. When the Bair Rents Amendment Bill was committed in the House of Representatives last night the Leader, of the Opposition, Mr Holland, reiterated liis objection lo the Bill being proceeded with at this stage of the session.. The first two clauses, continuing the principal Act for the duration of the war and one year afterwards, could bo passed and the amendments considered when the House reassembled in December. The Attorney-General, Mr Mason, referred to a point raised by Mr Acland tbo previous night—that servicemen should have the right to recover possession of their homes on their return. The Government had decided to exempt soldier owners of property from the provisions of the legislation. Actual ownership of their homes by men returning from service was a. point which would give them the right t-, regain possession on return from service, provided they had been in possession at the time they were called up. It might not be convenient for the wife and family of a soldier who went to war to continue to live in their home. They might desire to live with their parents or to make other arrangement®. When the soldiers returned there would be no obstacle placed in their way to regain possession of their homes. Mr Broadfoot: Then the member for Temuka brought up an important point last night? Mr Mason said the president of the Returned Services Association, Mr Perry, haJ made similar representations to him yesterday. He had also referred to the possible "eviction of soldiers’ wives, but that aspect had been' covered by widening the scope of the Act, all types of dwellings now being included. The right of the returned soldier-owner was made absolute, and be would not be affected in any way whatever by the Act. Dealing with the suggestion of Mr Holland that the first two clauses of the Bill should be passed and the remainder adjourned until later in the year, Mr Mason said th.e proposal was not feasible. The clause bringing in all dwellings was urgent. It was the most important part of the Bill, apart from the extension of the original Act for the duration of the tvar and a year afterwards. Mr Holland: IWe will agree to clause 3, making the Bill apply to ail dwellings. Mr Mason said it would be a job unworthy of the House to put through only half the Bill. Seeking postponement of consideration of the Bill, Mr Poison said that the amendment just introduced changed the whole operation of the Bill, and he criticised the Attorney-General . for his “ ungenerous attitude” in not giving full credit to- the member for Temuka for his suggestion. The Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) said it was time that the Opposition made up its mind whether it was going to support the Bill or oppose it. It could not do both. , Mr Poison had referred to the suggestion made by Mr Acland, and the Prime Minister thought Mr Acland deserved credit for that, but he did not think that the, Attorney-General intended to take the credit from anybody. They were not seeking kudos for individual members, but were trying to pass legislation for the benefit of tho people. The Attorney-General had shown him Mr Perry's letter yesterday afternoon, and they had considered it. Regardless of the difficulties, returned soldiers should be re-established in their homes. Urging the immediate passing of the Bill, Mr Schramm said that it should have been taken months ago. The time had also come for legislation dealing with shop and office rents. Mr Lee said it seemed that there might be a good deal of hardship, but if action were not taken the hardship resulting would be a hundred, times what it was at the moment. The Bill could be improved, and he suggested the setting up of a small tribunal under it to give immediate decisions. Provision. should also be made for ~tho relief for shop tenants who had long lenses, but whose turnovers were cut by tho wav. Mrs Dreaver thought that the clause in tho Bill prohibiting discrimination against children was the most progressive legislation that had yet been before the House. It answered the plea of the soldiers overseas that their wives and children should be protected. .It was neither in the interests of landlords or tenants that the Bill should be held up because of the anomalies it corrected, declared Mr Clyde Carr (Timaru). To date the legislation that had been passed had only nibbled at the problem. Mr Goosman thought some definition should be given of what constituted living in shop premises, and that the Bill also should specify the basis for fair rent. Mr Doidge thought the clause making it incumbent on a defendant to prove that refusal to let was for some other reason than that it was intended that a child should live in the house made a caricature of British justice, because one of the fundamental facts of British justice was that a man was innocent until he was proved guilty. The necessity for a stabilisation policy was mentioned by the Prime Minister when he was speaking on the Bill. He said the Bill before the House was not going to solve all rental problems. The member for Auckland East (Mr Schramm) had brought up the question of office rents, which were exceeding economic values. Because of the great extension of Government offices, it was clear that the question of office rentals and of rentals of all kinds had to be dealt with, but he did not think it could be dealt with in a Bill dealing with fair rents. “It must be part of The general stabilisation programme that will deal with all goods, costs, prices, rentals, wages, and all other matters that can and ought to be controlled for the rest of the war,” he said. He continued that he was speaking to the country as Swell as to the committee of the House when he said that if they did not take action they ' would inevitably land the country in disaster. He believed that action would be taken along the lines of stabilisation. If that were not done the country would not maintain the stability of its economic system or the standard of living of the people. AMENDMENT DEFEATED. The Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment to delete from the clause the portion placing on the property owner the burden of proving that refusal of a tenancy was for some reason other than because children would be living in the house. He said it was bad Jaw. Mr C. G. Harkov (Opposition, Waipawal suggested (lint a clause be inserted providing that where premises refused to a family were insufficiently large and would be overcrowded tbe penal section of the Bill should not apply. The Prime Minister; That is a point that might well be considered. Mr Mason said that some such provision might he inserted between now and the time the Bill came back from the Legislative Council.

“ I hope tbe Minister will consult members on this side of the House before he proposes any amendment to the original clause,” said Mr F. W. Schramm (Government, Auckland East). “There is no alternative to the clause as it stands.” On a division the Opposition amendment was defeated by 51 votes to 17. A new clause was added to the Bill to enable returned servicemen to regaih possession of their own homes, on the lines outlined by the Minister of Justice. The Bill was passed.