RURAL HOUSING

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 60, Issue 252, 1 August 1940, Page 3

RURAL HOUSING

BILL GENERALLY APPROVED.

PASSED BY THE HOUSE (Per Press Association). WELLIYGTNO. July 31. Moving the second reading of the Rural Housing Bill in the House of Representatives to-day, the Minister of Housing (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong) said there was nothing of a contentions nature in the measure, which only made certain necessary amendments to the existing law. The Minister explained the provisions of the Bill and, replying to a question asked by Mr W. J. Poison (National, Stratford), the previous evening as to the establishment of small villages for farm workers, said that though these may be necessary and,desirable it was entirely foreign to the provisions of the present Bill, which dealt only with the erection of dwellings on farms. “I would like to point out,” said the Minister, “that provision is already made under the Counties and Housing Acts for local bodies to borrow money from the State Advances Department to build houses for their employees, and this would meet the suggestion by Mr Poison. Local bodies could either sell these houses to the occupants or rent them and the State Advances Department would carry out all the necessary administrative work.” Subsidy Offered Referring to the 10 per cent, subsidy provided for in the Bill in the case of rural housing, the Minister said that provision had been made for it in the Estimates, and it was an incentive for farmers to get on with the job of providing houses for their employees. The 10 per cent, subsidy, he said, would not apply in cases of farmers who could afford to finance the building of houses for their own workers, and he did not think local bodies would advance money for this purpose to farmers who they knew could finance building operations themselves. They would not be doing, the right thing if they did. Where county councils would not assist farmers there was still provision under the existing law lor the State Advances Department to lend, money direct to a farmer for rural housing, but in this case the farmer would have to pay 4* per cent., against 3.j per cent, under the Rural Housing Act. Mr W. J. Rroadfoot (National, Waitomo): And the farmqr would also lose the subsidy?

Mr Armstrong: Yes, but he could not blame the Government for that. He would have to blame the stick-in-the-mud county council. Summarising the progress made to date, the Minister said that 69 county councils were in favour of the rural housing scheme and were proceeding with it. Village Housing, Mr Poison said he thought tire legislation so far 1 as it went was good, but he thought it was essential that the Bill should provide for village housing. He could not see any authority in the Bill toi prevent an applicant from getting a subsidy, but if there was some doubt it should he set out in the Bill explicity. Mr E. L. Cullen (Labour, Hawke’s Bay) and Mr A. E l . Jull (National, Waipawa) commended the Bill, hut the latter said he did not think it would iron out all the difficulties. Members of the Opposition generally congratulated the Minister on the introduction of the measure.

The Hen. W. Nash said the bill was a good one and would provide amenities for rural workers which were urgently required. The Bill was put through committee, read a third time and passed.