FAIR RENTS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 77, 21 October 1942, Page 4

FAIR RENTS

AMENDMENT BILL DEBATE TENANTS WITH < 1111 UKI N All .\ISTKIi EXPLAINS CLAUSES I l < 1 > . < * : ■ .. •. • • Wellington, Tin Day. .Moving tin* second Reading of Ihe lair Kents Amendment Kill ■«» the House of Representatives yesterday the Attorney-General 1 Mr .Mason) said its purpose was to see that people •. ho behaved themselsubjeeted to extortionate rentals he;.; .tli the elan pi ulnbilmg if- | tusal to let a d wellinghousc to an ap- j: pliCiint with children. Mr Mu-on su»ci t « this was taken Iron* the Australian leg- I In the Comm tti < tage how I'Vi'i . la- proposed to ask the House toll eliminate the part of the clause making ' it an ulTcnce to inquire from any pro- ■ ’ jpeetiy c tenant whether he had any i children or whether it war intended ; that a child should live in a dwelling- j house if it were let to the tenant. In his opinion that went a little too far. He had intended that that provision ■ liould be dropped from the Bill, but in the hurry that sometime- occuried in regard to legislation it had not been eliminated. i Natiom Bay ol Plenty >: "Would the Minister explain the basis upon what fair rent is arrived at?” Mr Mason said that 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 be justified. The Magistrates, in practice, operated on what might be called imaginary regulations. They had their i standards and he thought that in prac- | tice regulations would not help. Mr W. S Goosman iNational Waikato: "What about seaside cottages? In some parts of the year they command high rentals and at other times only low rent.” Mr Mason confessed he did not know j how Magistrates dealt with that pro- j blern. There was nothing to prevent | them from deciding upon different • rentals for different times of ‘.lie year. I HOUSING PROBLEMS The Leader of the Opposition 'Mr S. G. Holland* said every member of the 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 Attor-ney-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 the time the Government had embarked on its householding 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 results had been disappointing. The Deputy-Leader of the House 'Mr D. G. Sullivan): "I don't accept that.” Mr Holland said that the impression on the housing problem had not been as great as was anticipated by the i Government by a long way. Every time j a restriction on house budding had j

been introduced since 1936 house buildins 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. 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: “No. 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 House Department of prospective tenants in order that preference could be given to people with the largest families* and who were in the greatest need of procuring accommodation. Mr Holland said that under the new proposals an owner of a dwelling would 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 lie 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 in the house. The whole of the section dealing with children required reconsideration. He 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." he added, "but we have not had sufficient time to look at it thoroughly.” When the House met again lie would like to see amendments introduced m a consolidated measure. HOI'SIXG MINISTER’S CRITICISM The Minister of Housing (Mr Armstrong! had some criticism to make of the 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 Magistrates could operate in fixing fair rent. He could suggest hall a dozen amendments which he thought would vastly improve the Bill. Giving his support to the Bill. Mr E. P. Menchen 'Government. Marlborough! said he was convinced that the good security of tenure at a rental that was not financially embarrassing, was in the nation's interests. Mr W .P Endean ("National. Rcmuera) criticised the lack of fixed principles the measure which the court could adopt in dealing with a fair rents application. If there was not uniformity ol 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 Endean also criticised the provision requiring defendant to prove that refusal to let a house was for some other reason than that it was intended that a child should live in it. It was generally incumbent on the Crown to prove its ease and even under civil jurisdiction, in most cases the burden °f proof was upon plaintiff. It was inconsistent with preconceived ideas of British justice and tradition that the burden of proof should be transferred to defendant. Mr H E. Combs (Government. Wellington Suburbs' .aid there weie housein Wellington u oore the rental absorbed half of the tenant's income, with the result that calls had to be made on the Social Securit> to balance the family budget. The Bill was a bold step forward. Mr Acland (National. Temuka) said j 'hat he felt an injustice was being done to the men in the services. Many of

those inert had their own homes, and because they could not keep them going on service pay they had let tenants in. Under the Bill the only way , they could regain possession was by J proving greater hardship than the ten- ! ant in possession. As the tenant might I have increased his family the soldier would be at a disadvantage and would I have to stay out of his home until one ! year after the war was over. If a man was prepared to leave his home to fight tor his country he should be able to assume possession without having to go before a Magistrate when he returned. Mr A. S. Richards 'Government. Ros. kill) 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 two and a half days a week to satisfy the land- ■ lord’s demands.” said Mr 11. Atniore | ilndependent. Nelson), In Russia the i system was that the worker should pay I only 10 per cent, of his earnings for ! rent. j Mr F. W. Doidge (National. Tauranga) said it was desirable to have homes j for the people with gardens rather thaw Hats. Tiie Government was building Hats and letting them at high rentals. In Grey Lynn old age pensioners were paying 18s a week for small flats. Mr D W. Coleman < Government, Gisborneh "Less 2s lid a week.” Mr Doidge said the housing posi- | non represented a public scandal. Af- ; ter 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 be postponed until the December session. There were slums m Auckland and Wellington as bad as those in London. Liverpool and Glasgow. Under Slate control the situation could not be coped with. Methods were too slow and costs too high Many more houses could have been built before the war but progress had been retarded owing to the 40 hours week policy. “A man with a large family and 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-Genera I Mr Mason': "What is the good of talking rubbish like that? I think we aie entitled to resent statements that have no foundation in fact.” The Minister of Labour -Mr Webb* -aid that it was nonsensical of the Member for Tauranga to make a party speech over housing difficulties which were due to the demands of war on building materials and workers. He had personal experience < f distressing cases in Wellington owing to scarcity of houses. There were thousands of people paying so much in rent that they actually had to go without suflicient food. The housing problem was most acute in Wellington and Auckland because of the great industrial developments in those cities.