HOME TRUTHS ON SLUMS

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 109, 29 July 1927, Page 1

HOME TRUTHS ON SLUMS

MINISTER OF LABOUR SPEAKS OUT RESPONSIBILITY ON CIVIC AUTHORITIES (THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. A FEW homo truths about the slum areas in the four chief +o^™ re^ ted before the House of Representatives -night by the Hon. G. J. Anderson, Minister of Labour, wnen moving the second reading of the Rent Restriction t satisfied,” he said, “that for some of the houses saw the landlords should not be allowed to charge any rent at all. Tney are not deserving of the name houses.”

T HE Minister said that the Bill had been introduced largely as a I ? s ’i| t what he found on inspection of Dunedin, Christchurch and Auckland, while he had a personal knowledge of conditions in Wellington. What he saw convinced him of the necessity to protect tenants from landlords who owned the poorer class of house, many of which were unsanitary, unhealthy and an eyesore to

the community. Many were in disrepair and tottering. “It seemed to me,” Mr. Anderson went on, “that the civic authorities would have been justified in con- | demning many of them. Tenants in a number of cases complained that the landlords would not effect improvements. Many were with broken roofs, ! no windows, and without baths, 1 while in one yard one water-tap j served the requirements of half i a dozen houses. The Labour Department had been preventing exorbitant rents in some cases. The tenants in some cases would destroy a house, but this percentage was small. Some said that the Government was responsible for this state of affairs, but he refuted this. The civic authorities were to blame for allowing it to exist. Many of these houses were erected in the old days when no one thought of town-planning, and were in a bad state of disrepair. This | particularly was noticeable in one j Northern and one Southern city. Rents High in Auckland The people would be satisfied if they secured ordinary amenities, but they were of a class that, could not conveniently be transferred to the suburbs, as they had to ri3e early and go to work. Rents were particularly high in Auckland. It would be better to put these people into their own houses, but this was a matter for the civic authorities, whose duty it was to clean these slums up. The sooner they were cleaned up the sooner would this disgrace be removed from our chief cities. The cities could do this, and it was their duty to do it. In many cases the only value was the land upon which these rookeries were built. They were without sun and had no backyards for the children. “If there is a recurrence of the 1918 epidemic,” Mr. Anderson declared. “the results in these places will be dreadful. We must protect the people.”

A Labour member: How are the civic authorities to do it? Mr. Anderson: Raise the money and do the work themselves. There is no other way. I have said before that this law was not going to remedy this defect, and I still say so. In the meantime, however, the legislation protecting these unfortunate people must be continued. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West), said that much of the Minister’s remarks applied to areas in Auckland. To say the buildings were a menace to society was to put it mildly. The public hospitals had to pay the piper where insairftary conditions obtained, and they were fairly numerous in the Auckland area. When one came* to consider what the environment was like for children, it was a wonder that such good results were obtained in the public schools. “Undesirable Residences” Sir John Luke, Wellington, did not think that the term “slum dwellings” should be used with reference to New Zealand dwelling areas. Undesirable residences would be better. Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of th,e Opposition: Have you ever been in Haining Street? Sir John Luke: I know all about Haining Street. He said that in time it would ail be reconstructed. Mr. E. J. Howard, Christchurch South, hoped that the ■ Government would not shelter behind the city councils. Referring to workers’ homes, he said that they had two swamps in Christchurch, and the Government, badly advised by someone, bought both of them for building settlements. Good homes made good people, and mean houses mean people. Mr W. E. Parry, Auckland Central, said that a large number of places in his own constituency were very bad indeed, and were worse now than at the time of the epidemic in 1918. Footpaths and roads in Auckland were poor, and he knew of strefets scarcely a stone’s throw from Queen Street that were as bad as those in any country place. Mr. Parry was going on to deal with the shortage of houses when Mr. J. Mason, Napier, interjected: “If this law were dropped would not more houses be built? Mr. Parry: It would make no difference because the restriction does not

effect houses built since the Act came into force. The Hon. A. D. McLeod, Minister of Lands, could not agree that the responsibility should be on the State. Where a city council was in a position to borrow money for building for every house built one should he condemned, so that the slum areas could be got rid of, and in this way i-e----strietion could be ended. After a very mixed reception from different angles of the House, the Bill was read the second time and later passed through the remaining stages. Mr. Anderson, replying to criticism, said that he wanted to end thi3 legislation many years ago, but, after visiting the slums, he found this impossible.