FAIR RENTS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 206, 30 August 1940, Page 3

FAIR RENTS.

EXTENSION OF ACT.

PROTEST BY OPPOSITION.

WELLINGTON, thie day,

"We have been extending the Act for I do not know how long; it goes out every year and is re-enacted. I think a better name would be the Unfair Rents Act,'' said the Leader o f the Opposition, I All. Hamilton, when referring to a clause of the Statutes Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives yesterdav, which continues the Fair Rents" Act, 1930 ' until September 30, IJMI. "The Govern-! nient likes to give its bills nice names ' mieh as Social Security," he added. This reference caused laughter from the Government benches, and there was a chorus of ha ha's. The Minister of Supply. Mr. Sullivan: V\ ho christened the Fair Rents Bill? Mr. Hamilton: I know who is extending it. I doubt whether I get correspondence on any other subject that gives me more concern than applications to obtain possession of houses. The Act causes many difficulties. Why re-enact it year after year? Why not drop it and let us get back to normal business methods? The legislation is one of the greatest hindrances to the buildino- o f homes. ° Government Dissent. This statement also induced a chorus of dissent from the Government benches. Mr. Hamilton instanced the case of a man suffering from T.B. who, after purchasing a house was unable to obtain possession. "The tenant was protected and sat tight," he said. The injustices were greater than the benefits of the legislation. Houses built after June, 1936, were not protected so that on« house could be obtained for say 30} a week while a neighbouring house, no better in construction, could be rented at double that figure.

I • "THE LOADED GUN" \ i WELLINGTON, this day. ■ , THE contention that the farmer I I ■*• was facing the loaded gun at \ ■ every turn was made by Mr. I I Broadfoot (Opposition, Waitomo) J ■ in the House of Representatives j , yesterday when discussing farm- ■ I ing costs during the debate on the J ■ Statutes Amendment Bill. i I The farmer, said Mr. Broadfoot, J J was one of those perfectly pre- I ■ pared to increase production and J ' to do his share of war effort, but i , wherever he turned to-day he ■ I found costs put up against him. J J He thought the farmer to-day was I ■ entitled to be disgruntled, and ■ ■ that the Farmers' Union was quite J , right in sending a deputation to I ■ the Government pointing out the j • inequalities that were happening i I and the granting of privileges to ■ I several sections of the community j J at the expense of the farming I I industry. J • —(Parliamentary Reporter.) ■

The Minister of Housing, Mr. Armstrong: Do you want to bring them all in. Mr. Hamilton: One is protected, the other is not. The question should be reconsidered and a better method than the present found. "The most injurious piece of legislation this Government has passed," declared Mr. Holland (Opposition, Christchurch North). "It is a body blow at owners of houses and private builders, and a body blow at the house renter." The Prime Minister, Mr. Fraser: The honourable gentleman will vote against the clause? The Prme Minister interjected that the original Fair -Rents Act passed by the National Government had continued through all the years. Mr. Holland said it was not the same Act. It was wrong that the law placed on the owner an obligation to rind a tenant similar accommodation if he wanted his own house for his own use. Prime Minister Intervenes. The Prime Minister interrupted in a further endeavour to correct what he considered to be the Opposition members' wrong view of the Act and its history. Mr. Holland commented after a lively exchange that they had not had such an enjoyable evening in Parliament for a long time.

The answer came from the Rev. Mr. Nordmeyer (Government, Oamaru), who suggested that it was always possible to quote cases showing that legislation was not working equitably, but the alternative to the Fair Rents Act was to throw tenants into the street, while the inference from Mr. Holland's example was that the Opposition would like both houses let at £3 10/ a week.

Replying, the Attorney-General, Mr. Mason, said that the latest annual report of the Labour Department clearly indicated the need for the Act. It showed that the Department's inspectors had dealt with 0000 odd cases in respect to tenancies.

Further objection was raised to the clause in the committee stages by the Opposition, who forced the House to a division. The clause was retained by 24 votes to 17. — (Parliamentary Reporter.)