HOUSING CONDITIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 164, 13 July 1928, Page 5

HOUSING CONDITIONS.

INDIFFERENCE ALLEGED.

GOVERNMENT ASSAILED.

MANY FAMILIES RUINED

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, Thursday,

Indifference to the needs of the workers so far as housing is concerned was one of Mr. Bartram's main points in criticising the Government to-day. He said the Minister had interjected during one of his (the speaker's) speeches last session that housing had been caught up in Auckland. Mr. Bartram asserted that the Ministers statement was untrue. There might be empty houses in Auckland. but for no other reason than that rents were too high, or the location of dwellings was unsuitable in view of existing conditions. People preferred to live in rooms rather than move into expensive houses. There was a growing tendency for people to live in rooms which were called flats. Really, they were not flats, because, apart from a separate stove or gas jet, whole families shared the sanitary conveniences. The terms "flats" was applicable only to those who were content to live in such miserable conditions and go on voting for the Reform Government.

Mr. Bartram urged the Minister of Finance to make strenuous efforts to catch up arrears of applications for State advances for homes. Here was a method right into the Government's hands. If Reform was genuinely anxious to solve the unemployment problem, if building were encouraged (and it would be if State advances were available), many other activities would go ahead too. A Working Class Tragedy. Mr. Bartram proceeded to paint a heartrending picture of a typical working class tragedy caused by failure of the State Advances Department to fulfil all the promises held out to workers. He told of a family that set out to build a house costing £850 on a section worth £250. Under the terms of the Act this was very reasonable. The family withdrew from the bank £40 that had been saved, and deposited it on a section. Then, having consulted the speaker, who advised them to save money if possible, or raise it on an insurance policy, the family obtained £20 on an industrial policy to make up the additional sum wanted for a deposit on the section. Then £3 was taken with reluctance from the children's money box to pay stamp duty. In high hopes the family then sent off their application for an advance, dreaming of a fine little home which was to replace a dilapidated shanty in which they lived. Month after month passed for nearly two years, and then came word that only £900 could be granted. This meant raising a second mortgage of £140 for the balance of the money, thus increasing the rent to 50/.

Mr. Bartram said he knew of many cases where families had been ruined as the result of the failure of 'the State Advances Department to fulfil promises held out by Reform. Not only had the home been forfeited, but the savings, the life insurance policy, and the money from the children's money box had all gone. Such cases were likely to happen again and again while the present policy of the Government remained unaltered. The housing policy of Reform was an utter failure. The Government was borrowing no more money for advances. The Minister of Finance: How much more would you have me borrow?

Mr. Potter (sarcastically): Oh, millions.

Mr. Bartram said it would be far better to spend two millions on housing and solve the unemployment problem than let present conditions continue.