STATE TENANTS

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIV, Issue 200, 24 August 1943, Page 2

STATE TENANTS

CONCESSIONS MADE BETTER THAN THE FREEHOLD (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. "Better than the freehold," declared a Government member when the Minister of Finance, Mr. Nash, explained to the House of Representatives last night an amendment in the housing legislation making important concessions to State tenants. He was referring to an amendment included in the Finance Bill, which was introduced shortly after 11.30, and said that a clause provided that in regard to State houses the tenancy could not be terminated so long as the rent was paid and the tenant observed the conditions. This would give the tenant complete security of tenure.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Holland: What is the need for it? They cannot be turned out now.

The Minister: We want to make sure. In 20 years' time there might be a Government which might want to turn them out.

Another innovation in connection with the tenancy, said the Minister, was that the occupier of a State house could pay an extra weekly sum, which would be set aside so that, in the event of the husband dying, the widow could continue the tenancy at a lower rental. If this extra sum was paid for a given number of years she might be able to continue in the tenancy without rent as long as she remained a widow. These provisions were permissive, but, said the Minister, they made the State house v. home in the best sense of the word. There was another provision whereby occupiers having reached a specified age, say the pension age, would still want to keep their home, though to pay the full rent out of the social security benefit would be burdensome. Therefore, it was possible during their working years to pay a larger weekly sum than their weekly rent, so that in their later years they would pay a smaller rental, or, possibly, no rent at all.

Mr Holland: It means paying rent in advance.

Mr. Nash: Yes, an insurance scheme.

Continuing, the Minister said that another provision would enable the last surviving parent to nominate either by declaration or will one child to carry on the home, which, in effect, meant it could be maintained by a family for all time.