HOUSING.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 January 1922, Page 5

HOUSING.

OPERATIONS OF THE STATE. INCREASING THE PRICE. PROPOSALS IN NEW BILL By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. In the House to-night the Hon. G. J. Anderson moved the second reading of the Housing Amendment Bill. The Minister said no department had been so freely criticised as the Housing Department, with very little knowledge of the subject on the part of the critics. The fact was that during the war labor was scarce and material dear. In Auckland and Wellington the Government endeavored to build houses under contract, but in both cases the contracts were thrown up and the Government had to take the work over and finish the houses themselves. Because of the difficulty of getting tenders the prices of houses could not be gauged, and in one case a house which was estimated to cost £lOOO ultimately cost £l4OO. Small contracts were subsequently adopted, and under this system better results had been achieved. Under these circumstances he was asking in the Bill for power to increase the price of houses.

The Minister defended the administrative charges off the Housing Department. These, he said, were much lower than was generally credited. Including office charges these expenses amounted to £42 per house, and minus these charges £32 per house. Had they been able to carry out the scheme as at first intended the expenses would have been even less than £32. Describing the difference in the cost of houses built by the Railway Department and the Housing Department he claimed the former had advantages over the latter which accounted for the difference. The cheapest house built by the department was at Wanganui—viz., £750. A new scheme was now being evolved, and he was confident houses could be built cheaper than formerly. They had a considerable quantity of material on hand, and this would be available for future houses. Discussing tenement and other forms of houses for city people, the Minister said the ideal form of house no doubt was a house upon its own section. This class of house, however, could not be built in any of the four cities. They must be built in the suburbs far out, and, that being so, it was the duty of the city councils to provide means by which the people can be brought in to their work at the requisite hours. He then proceeded to explain in detail the clauses of the Bill. Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) contended that the Bill, by removing the protection to tenants afforded by the 1916 legislation, would result in increased trafficking in house property. Mr. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) said it was most unfortunate that the Government was compelled to increase the price of bouses, because it would cause considerable irritation when it was discovered that some people were getting houses at one price and others would have to pay more. The charges on a house costing £1250 were more than the ordinary worker could pay out of the wages now being earned.

Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) protested against the power given to an owner to expel a tenant. The safest course was to leave a magistrate to adjudicate between claimants for occupation of a house. The remedy for the problem was to build more houses, and he looked to the Minister to provide a policy which would result in this being done. The national economic loss due to unemployment would be far greater than the cost of borrowing money to build houses. What was wanted was £1,000,000 expended on housing. Mr. J. A. Nash (Palmerston North) thought houses should not be built at £1250, as in a few years they would be at a loss, but if the Minister cpuld build houses at £6OO as suggested then he should build thousands.

Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South) said unless we built houses we would create slums and reduce the physique and lower the moral sense of the people, which would be the greatest national loss we could suffer. The Minister said we could not afford to build houses, but he asked: Can we afford not to build houses? Mr. T. W. Rhodes (Thames) said that if the State could not build cheap they had better leave it to private enterprise.

Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) declared that the Government could not be exonerated froxn blame by bungling, which everyone admitted had taken place in connection with the housing scheme. In view of the continued increases of the cost of houses the Government, instead of reducing wages, should be increasing wages. ’ Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) said the Government should help people to build houses to suit themselves, and should only build such houses as they could sell. Restrictions on the ownership of houses intensified the congestion, and should be removed.

At 1.30 a.m. the Minister replied, after which the Bill was read a second time.