Holiday Cribs Exempted From Compulsory Letting Under New Legislation

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26629, 27 November 1947, Page 7

Holiday Cribs Exempted From Compulsory Letting Under New Legislation

Parliamentary Reporter,

WELLINGTON, Nov. 26.

The exemption of premises normally used for holiday purposes, such as seaside baches, from the provisions of the Fair Rents Amendment Bill dealing with the compulsory letting of empty houses was one of several Government amendments brought down for inclusion in the Bill in the House of Representatives to-night.

' The amendments were explained by the Minister of Labour, Mr McLagan, who said it was felt, after going into all aspects of the matter, that a large number of houses other than holiday places which were available gave sufficient scope for the application of the relevant section of the Bill for some time to come without bringing holiday places within its scope.

The Minister said that it would be made clear that the giving of service such as the making of beds would not exempt premises from the scope of the principal Act. Regard for Equity As wide a discretion as. possible would be given to local authorities in serving notices for compulsory letting of premises, and the courts would be given power to decide each case on its merits, having regard to the equity of the case and not merely to a strict interpretation of the law. Another amendment would give the owners ol unoccupied dwellings the right of appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision of a magistrate. The Bill as introduced had made a magistrate the final authority for deciding.cases. Another amendment ensured that an ex-serviceman who already occupied a dwelling could not secure the right of possession of another. The existinglaw gave an ex-serviceman protection in respect of any tenancies he held, even if there were several, and that was obviously not intended. Another amendment ensured that where an unoccupied house was portion of a deceased estate the time for the operation of compulsory letting would be increased to one year. The definition of “house” in the Bill would be amended by exempting “any dwelling ordinarily used for holiday purposes.” The State Advances Corporation would be required to give effect to any reasonable representations of the owner in respect to choice of tenants for houses let compulsorily, and local bodies would be given authority to inspect empty houses. It might be found in some cases that the premises were unsuitable for the issue of a notice of occupation. Compensation for Damage The definition of offences would be widened to enable an owner to obtain compensation from a tenant for damage other than . reasonable wear and tear. The great advantage of similar legislation in Tasmania and Victoria had been that it encouraged owners to let their houses voluntarily. Those let compulsorily were numerically insignificant, and it was hoped that the legislation would have a similar effect here. Requested by Ex-servicemen Part 2 of the Bill, said Mr McLagan, was designed to make the best use of available housing accommodation and had been introduced at- the request of the Returned Services’ Association. The scope for the Bill in New Zealand was shown by the fact that the 1945 census revealed that there were 7136 empty houses, while in addition there were 11,000 holiday places, including seaside baches, etc. There were also 5919 houses from which the usual occupants were absent at the time of the census. Mr W. Sullivan (Oppn., Bay of Plenty) said that *f it had been stated in the first place that holiday places were going to be exempt the Minister would have avoided a lot-of bricks. There was much concern about the legislation, for it had a nasty taste of interfering with the right of* ownership and of title. Though the Prime Minister had said the R.S.A. had asked for the legislation, it was still a Government measure. The Government frequently received representations from people on various matters and turned a deaf ear when it suited. Basically, the legislation was to frighten people into letting houses, 1; Mr, Sullivan said, and, if they did ‘not when requested by a local authority, the State Corporation would step in and the houses would virtually become its property. The Bill was practically providing for legislative theft. Two men could have £IOOO One would put it into a house apd the other into a car or on a horse. The Government could get at the thrifty man but not at the one who spent on luxury or gambling. The Minister of Defence, Mr Jones, said that the N.Z.R.S.A. and the 2nd N.Z.E.F. Association, as a result of discussions at their conferences, had made representations for the legislation over a period. Such representations carried a good deal of weight with the Government, which had gone a long way towards meeting the demands, but had not so far met all. What could be worse than a family living in one room where there were houses vacant and perhaps, being held vacant by the owners for speculative purposes? The Bill did not go as far as the returned servicemen would have liked. One of their leaders, Majorgeneral Kippenberger, would have included all houses. Mr T. C. Webb (Oppn., Rodney) said it was stated by the Government that the R.S A. was behind the measure, but how many members knew about it? The R.S.A. had a great part to play, but he hoped it did not make the same mistake: as the R.S.A. did after the First World War and turn into a pressure group, as a result of which it lost a lot of public support. He hoped that the rank and file of the membership did not allow themselves to be influenced too. much by their executives and that the members themselves would take a greater interest in affairs. The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, said the only real solution of the housing problem was houses and more houses. The Bill, though essential and necessary, was at its best only a stop-gap. Only the Government could take responsibility for the legislation. The R.S.A. was anything but a pressure group, and not a single complaint could be laid against its attitude. After several more members on both sides of the House had expressed their views, the Bill was read a second time, put through its remaining stages and passed as amended by the Minister.