FAIR RENTS BILL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 77, 22 October 1942, Page 2

FAIR RENTS BILL

MEASURE PASSED BY HOUSE AMENDMENTS IN COMMITTEE STAGES PROVISION FOR SOLDIERS TO REOCCUFY HOMES From Our Own Parliamentary Reporter] Wellington, This Day. When the Fair Rents Amendment Bill was committed in the House of Representatives last night the Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) reiterated his objection to the Bill being proceeded with at this stage of the session. The first two clauses, continuing th principal Act for the duration of the war and <sne year afterwards, could be passed and amendments considered when the House reassembled in Dc mber. The Attorney-General (Mr H. G. R. Mason) referred to a point raised by Mr Acland (Nat., Temuka), the previous night, that servicemen should have the right to recover possession of their homes on their return. The Government had decided to exempt soldierowners of property from the provisions of the legislation. Actual ownership of homes by men returning from service was a point which would give them the right to 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 the war to continue to live in their home. They might desire to live with parents or make other arrangements. When soldiers returned there would be no obstacle placed in their way to regain possession of their homes. Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Nat.. Waitomo): "Then the Member for Temuka brought up an important point last night?” Mr Mason said the President of the Returned Services’ Association, the Hon. W. Perry, had made similar representations to him yesterday. He had also referred to the possible eviction of soldiers’ wives, but that aspect had been covered by the widening of the scope of the Act. all types of dwellings now being included. The right of the returned soldier owner was made absolute and he would not be affected in any way whatever by the Act. OPPOSITION PROPOSAL NOT FEASIBLE Dealing with the suggestion of Mr Holland that the first two clauses of the Bill should be passed and the remainder until later in the year, Mr Mason said the 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 war and a year afterwards. Mr Holland: "We will agree to clause three, making the Bill apply to all dwellings.” Mr Mason said it would be a job unworthy of the House to put through only half a Bill. Seeking postponement of consideration of the Bill, Mr W. J. Poison (Nat., Stratford) 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 credit from anybody. They were not seeking kudos for individual members, but were trying to pass legislation for the benefit of the people. The Attorney-General had shown him Mr Perry’s letter yesterday afternoon, and they had considered it. Regardless of difficulties, returned soldiers should be re-established in their homes. SHOP AND OFFICE RENTS Urging the immediate passing of the Bill. Mr F. W. Schramm (Govt.. Auck-

land East) said that it should have been taken months ago. The time had also come for legislation dealing with shop and office rents. Mr J. A. Lee (Democ.-Lab., Grey Lynn) 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 relief for the shop tenants who had long leases but turnovers cut by the war. Mrs Dreaver (Govt.. Waitemata) thought that the clause in the Bill prohibiting discrimination against children was the most progressive legislation that had yet been before the House. It answered the plea of soldiers overseas that their wives and children should be protected. ANOMALIES CORRECTED [ 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 iGovt.. Timaru). To date the legislation that had been passed had only nibbled at the problem. Mr W. S. Goosman (Nat., Waikato) 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 F. W. Doidge (Nat., Tauranga) thought the clause making it encumbent on 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. TENANTS WITH CHILDREN When the clause in the Bill making it an offence for a landlord to refuse to let a dwelling to an applicant with children was discussed the AttorneyGeneral secured the deletion of the portion which included among the offences an inquiry from any prospective tenant whether there were children. The Leader of the Opposition took strong exception to the final paragraph of the clause which threw on the landlord the onus of proving that refusal to let a dwelling was for some reason other than that the applicant had children. He moved that it be struck out. Mr Mason contended that although Mr Holland was right in principle there had to be exceptions, and these were to be found in New Zealand laws. Unless the clause remained there would be no possible chance of dealing with the problem because it would be impossible to get the evidence of a landlord expressly stating his objection to children. Mr Holland: "Would the Minister object to a landlord refusing because the number of children would unduly overcrowd a dwelling. The Prime Minister suggested that unless the clause remained it would be impossible to protect children. If it was deleted a landlord objecting to children could simply sit back and smile cynically. On a division Mr Holland’s motion to delete the paragraph was lost by 31 votes to 17. A new clause to ensure that ex-ser-vicemen would be able to regain possession of their houses was added on the Minister’s motion, and the Bill was reported from committee, and passed.