RESTRICTION OF RENTS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 730, 1 August 1929, Page 7

RESTRICTION OF RENTS

COUNCIL AGREES TO BILL PRINCIPAL OPPOSED Press A.:gsocialion "WELLINGTON, Wednesday. The Rent Restriction Continuance Bill was parsed by the Legislative Council today. Several members voted, in favour of the Bill although exposed to its principle.

Moving the (second reading, the Leader of the Council, the Hon. T. K. Sidey, recalled when the Bill had been rejected bry the Council by one vote in 1927, bift pointed out that subsequently it had been passed on provision being made that a landlord could regain possession if he could show he bait entered into a bona-fide contract to Isell. As distress was still prevalent in the community, Mr. Sidey submitted there was still warrant for thqf continuance of the legislation and (that it could do no harm. The housirjg position was steadily improving ai*l he hoped the time would soon comq when further re-enactment would be unnecessary. Sir Frefderic Lang' could not see the needff the legislation; indeed, he said it i*ad done enormous harm in restricting private enterprise in building houses. He expressed surprise that tfc.e Government, which professed mon-interference with private enterprise, had brought in such a Bill. While opposing the measure he would not press for a division.

The Hon. A. S. Malcolm declared that tlje legislation had curtailed building. He could not see why it should he applied partially to houses built before a certain date. He disliked tlio .measure, hut felt he must have regaud for the wishes of those who had, the responsibility of the country’s administration. Uhe Hon. W. Earnshaw said he was disappointed to see the Bill again brought forward. It was more a ■T*>P” to placate the extreme Labour element than that the Government vfas convinced of the necessity for aontinuing the legislation on its merits. The Act placed slum landlords “on velvet” but it was disadvantageous to suburban house-owners, (who could not charge a rental in proportion to the cost of a dwelling. There was no longer a house shortage. He would vote in support of the Bill, but reluctantly.

The Hon. J. Barr submitted that this was not an appropriate time to discontinue the legislation. The Bill did not detrimentally affect any part of New Zealand, and for the sake of a few people who were hard put to it the present law should he continued. He hoped there would not he re-enact-ment next year, lie did not approve of the principle of the measure. The Bill was read a second time on the voices and put through its final stages and passed.