HOUSING BILL.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16654, 15 October 1919, Page 6

HOUSING BILL.

SECOND READING DEBATE.

(PRESS ASSOCIATION' TELEGKAM.)

WELLINGTON, Octobor 14. In the Houso of Representatives this evening the Prime Minister moved tho second reading of tho iiousing Bill. Ho said it was intended to find a romcdy for tho scarcity of houses, more particularly in the "Wellington district. This shortage was largely duo to tho scarcity of labour and tho cost of material during the war, wnich had practically put a stop to building operations. Ho rejrrotted that labour was still scareo, and material still dear, but they had to go on all tho same. Part 1 of tho Bill provided for sotting up a Housing Board, for sotting apart land for houses, and for the financial arrangements in connexion with tho scheme. Ho proposed under this Bill' to increase the advances under tho "Workers' Dwellings Act from £450 to £750 in the case of wooden buildings, payment to extend over 25} years, and in tho case of nioro substantial material, 36} years. Part 2of tho Bill provided for special settlements for public servants. Part 3 made provision for loans to employers for tho purpose of erecting workers' dwellings. Part 4 extended tho provisions of tho Act to Harbour Boards, and Part 5 extended like privileges to other local authorities. The Bill was mainly a machinery one. It was an important Bill, and ho hoped it would bo passed into law during the next few days. Sir Joseph Ward said this question was intimately connected with tho cost of living, and he proposed to discuss it fully. Ho understood that tho Government proposod to lend money to borrowers -under this Bill at 5 por cent. He had made a calculation on this basis, and he found that on a £750 investment it would coat tho borrower about 14s 8d per wook, and on an £850 proposal 16s sd. That, ho thought, was too much. These houses should not cost people more than 10s Gd per week. He considered that this could bo done, because of tho great profits made by Advances to Settlers Fund and tho Advances to Workors Fund, the former of which had made a net profit of £950,000, and lent £21,000,000 without the slightest loss. Tho latter fund had made a profit of £92,000 since it had been in existence. Hfo would not borrow in tho ordinary way for the housing scheme, but would take tlio money from the Post Office Savings Bank, and lend it to borrowers, securing houses at 3} per cent. Thero was ovor nineteen millions of the people's investments in the Post Office Savings Bank, and this could be used to no bettor end than in providing houses for the peoplo. There was no douDt About the stability of this fund as the source of the supply of money, and tho money could always bo obtained. He believed that six. thousand workers' houses wore required, and amongst the workers he included Civil Servants, clerks, and all kinds of people with small incomes. Ho favoured establishing a sinking fund of £ per cent., wiiich would extinguish the loans on the following basis: 3 per cent, G6 years; 4 per cent.. 56-57 years; 5 per eent.., 49-50 years. Ho thought all these houses should be built, except in special cases, of concrete, for which all the material was at hand. H© thought there should be no such thing as profitmaking out of this scheme, but it was important that it should) bo placed on a safe basfis. . . .

Mr "Wilkinson said although tho Bill was liberal, he thought it might have been more liberal. His objection to tho Bill was that when the Government lent money to local bodies or employers there was nothing stated as to the rate of interest those local or employers could charge. They should not be allowed to overcharge those people who took up tho houses. * Mr Mnssey remarked that the .scheme must not be run at a loss. - , I

Mr Wilkinson Baid he thought the country might have to face a loss,, and 110 great harm -would result if it' did. He urged that practical men should be put on the Housing Board, and that the limit of income should be raised. The sum fixed in the Bill was altogether too small. He hoped the Government would ho prepared to'accept reasonable amendments m Committee."

Mr Mussey said the Government would welcome reasonable amendments.

Mr Parr said employers and local bodies, as well as the' Government, had a responsibility in thiis matter, and there ought to be some form of compulsion applied to them if they did not recognise that responsibility. The scheme would probably result in a loss, but ■that must bo faced.

Mr Hornsby said there was a building ring in this country, whose aim was to block the Government and the local bodies in this housing 6cheme, but if the Government went about it in a businesslike way, and imported material and used the State sawmills, comfortable five or six-roomed houses could 1 be buiilt for £650 to £700. It had been sard that there would be a financial loss on the scheme, but he asked, Would it be a loss? He thought it would be the greatest boon to the country if the scheme proved to be successful. Dr Newman said the houses under the Bill would be too dear. Unless cheap houses were provided for people, many would still prefer to live in rooms, and the very terrible conditions prevailing would continue. Mr Holland supported the central idea of 'the Bill, but said he thought there was too much division of autnoxity. It would be better if the Government retained t"he power to build l all bouses. He also objected to the power to sell the houses after they wero built.

The second reading was agreed to on the voices.