FAIR RENTS BILL

Marlborough Express, Volume LXXVI, Issue 248, 21 October 1942, Page 4

FAIR RENTS BILL

APPROVAL AND CR1TICISM OPPOSITION TO SOME CLAUSES. REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT.

P.A.

WELLINGTON, Oc1?. 21.

The Fair Rents Amendment Bill engaged the attention of the House of Representatives for the greater part of yesterday's sitting. 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 emphasised that many new contentious issues were included in the measure and that those affected 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. Mr E. P. Meachen ' (Govt., Marlborough) was among the speakers. The Bill was read a second time before the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. to-day. The Attorney- General, Mr Mason, in moving the second reading, said it had to be recognised 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 realis°d that the legislation was necessary while the war lasted and for a period after it. In the original Fair Rents Act certain types of places, flats and new houses, v/ere exempted in order to encourage the building activity of that time. But to-day 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. The Bill in detail was enlarged to eover all houses and places used as dwellings. Under the old legislation it was a question of degree; here there was no question of degree. Lieensed premises were the only exemption. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Ilolland: Why? The Minister: Nobody wants to be bothered by fixing hotel rents. In general hotels are not places of permanent residence. Discussing the provision making cenancv 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 011 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 property-owners 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 proper ty-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 defmite basis was not laid down by the Bill. The whole idea in the Bill was to prevent rents rising and every rise must be .iustified. Hardship would of course oe taken into account. Mr Lee (Demoeratic 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 wrere not speciflcally mentioned in the Bill. They lllustrated one of the difficulties of bringing down regniations 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. The Leader of the Opposition, 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 house-build-ing was primarily the work of private enterprise financed with Stat'e advances. That worked well. He thought the Government was disappointed with the results of its own housing scheme. The Minister for Housing, Mr Armstrong: Oh, no. The Minister for Supply, Mr Sullivan: There was an enormous amount of leeway to make up. Mr 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. 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 lettlng houses. Mr Mason : They ask questions only with 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 Fiving 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 aliowed to occupv an overerowded house or even one room. He suggested that only the claos,Qc extending the principal Act till one yeai aftei the war should be proceeded with, and the remainin0, clauses held over for consideration in December. The Opposition would co-operate in framing constructive amendments which would make for

an lmproved Bill. The tlrhs 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 Prims 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 utilising 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. HOUSING CONDITIONS. The Minister for Labour; Mr Webb, said 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 rents demanded. Mr Polson (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 flats in Wellington, said ' Mr Webb, were really fine homes. The Bill was overdue, ancl 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 hasty 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. v