SOLDIER OWNER PROTECTED

Southland Times, Issue 24881, 22 October 1942, Page 4

SOLDIER OWNER PROTECTED

Amendment To Fair Rents Act

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, October 21. The Fair Rents Amendment Bill was taken in committee in the House of Representatives tonight. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr S. G. Holland, reiterated his objec-

tion to all of the measure being passed and asked the Government , to consider postponing the new matter in the Bill until December.

The Attorney-General, the Hon. H. G. R. Mason, referred to Ihe point raised by Mr J. Acland (Nat., Temuka) that men in the services should have the right to recover possession of their homes on their return, and said the Government had decided to exempt a soldier owner of property from the provisions of the Fair Rents Act. The actual ownership of a home by a man returning from service was a point which would give him the right to regain possession on his return from service provided he had been in possession at the time he was called up. If a soldier owner or his wife let the house and on his return he desired to regain ownership, then the Act would place no obstacles in his way. The right of a returned soldier owner was made absolute and the Act would not affect him in any way whatever. IMPORTANT CHANGES Referring to Mr Holland’s request that part of the measure should be allowed to stand over until December, Mr Mason said that was not possible. There were one or two important changes in the Bill, and one of the most important was the cause which brought in all dwelling houses. That could not be held over. The other clauses were not so important, but some of them were consequential, and it would make a poor sort of job to cut them out. The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser, said the Opposition should make up its mind to support the Bill or oppose it. He agreed that Mr Acland deserved credit for his suggestion, but they were not seeking kudos for individual members; they were trying to pass legislation for the benefit of the people. Regardless of the difficulties, they should re-establish returned soldiers in their homes. The Bill was not going to solve all rental problems. It was clear that office rentals and rentals of all kinds would have to be dealt with, but he did not think they could be dealt with in a Bill dealing with fair rents. GENERAL STABILIZATION “It must be part of a general stabilization 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. If they did not take action they would inevitably lead the country to disaster. He believed that that action would be taken along the lines of stabilization. Mr Mason moved to strike out a subclause prohibiting a landlord from asking if a prospective tenant had children. Mr Holland moved as an mendment to the clause that sub-clause 2, which puts on a landlord the burden of proving that refusal to let was not due to the fact that a prospective tenant had children, should be struck out. The clause was bad law, he said, and should not be in the Bill. Mr Mason said the clause was not unduly burdensome. AMENDMENT DEFEATED Mr Fraser asked the legal members of the House to say how children could be protected without the provision in the sub-clause. Even with it, it would be difficult to prove a case. The amendment was defeated by 31 votes to 17. A clause protecting the rights of servicemen was inserted and the Bill was passed. Mr Fraser said that a secret session, which would include a discussion on man-power, would begin tomorrow. A report on man-power would be available to members in the morning.