THE HOUSING PROBLEM.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16851, 3 June 1920, Page 7

THE HOUSING PROBLEM.

PBOTECTION for soldiers.

<J»SES3 ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) "WELLINGTON, June 2. The Cor.fcrcnce of the N-Z. P^ turn : ] cd Soldiers' Association to-day affiled tho principle that returned men shoul l l,e given protection against ejectment froai rented dwellings for a further period of twelve months. The Christcluirch branch submitted the following remit on the its adoption was rrr-ommended dv the Land Committee: ''That, in view of the acuto shortage of houses, tins Ccnforencc ur-'es the Government to continue the protection -iven to returned so.uiors by the. War Regulations Act of IJI-i, against ejection from rented dwellings for a further period of twelvo months, as from Aucnst 2nd next." , Mr W. Perry (Wellington) said tnere was great feeling against protection bein"- extended to returned soldiers, which found its expression amongst land agents and landlords. T i.ey all uno.% how acute the houro shortage was, and? from his own knowledge he could state that every Thursday morning the business of the "Wellington Magistrate s Court was taken up with _ tenement cases. He submitted that instead Oi soldiers beins* protected for a period of twelvo months, they should be protected for so long as the house shortage existed. "If there is any individual "n this country who ought to have a roof over his head, and who is entitled not to be ejected from his house so long as he pays the rent and (locs not knock tho houses about, surely it is the returned soldier, who, dnring the last four or five year?, has been stan'ding un to his knees in mud in the trenches wliile the owners of hnuse3 were lying in bed," declared Mr Perry amidst npnlause. Mr W. E. Lead ley fChristchurch) remarked that since the principle had been put on the Statute Book, protection to soldiers had been a bugbear to land agents and landlords, but to the majority of returned soldiers throughout the* country it had been a veritable godsend. He hoped the Conference would realise the importance of the remit, and see that jt was put through in no uncertain voice. He knew of n case where a man who left his wife and | children behind when he went to the j war returned to find that his home was j without gas and water. About six: months before the man returned, his | told to quit the bouse, which j had been sold over her head. Tho j landlord said that unless she got out within a certain time be would have tho gas and water cut off. This threat was carried out. Mr Leadlev said he interviewed the landlord, and told him that unless the gas and water were laid on again immediately the whole case would be published in the Press, and the result was that next day the gas andi water were reinstated. This was one instance which proved that protection was necessary to prevent returned men from being "bluffed" out of giving up their houses. The Rev. W. Walter (Christchnrch), in supporting: the remit, mentioned th© case of a Christchureh woman whoso husband was in hospital awaiting an operation. This woman had been ordered to leave her house by the Court, the ground of the landlord's application being that the premjses had not been kept in proper repair. All that she had omitted to do was to keep tho garden in order. Mr I>. S. Smith (Gore) opposed tho remit, because ho thought that returned soldiers -might hare an unfair advantage over civilians. After all, returned soldiers were now civilians, and they coxild be ejected now if they failed to pay rent, committed a nuisance to neighbours, or allowed their houses to fall into disrepair. The remit was carried.