RENT RESTRICTION

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18135, 26 July 1924, Page 12

RENT RESTRICTION

THE GOVERNMENT'S BILL. PASSED ALL STAGES IN HOUSE. (ABKIDGZD FBKS3 ASSOCIATION BEPOBT.) WELLINGTON, July 25. In the House of Representatives this afternoon, the Hon. G. J. Anderson, Minister of Labour, moved the second reading of the Rent Restriction Bill. In so doing he explained that the duration of the present law was extended by the Bill to August 31st, 1925. Clause 3 renders inoperative any agreement between landlord and tenant by which a tenant purports to contract himself out of the protection of the Act. By Section 6 of the War Legislation Amendment Act, 3916, "standard rent," computed for a period of a year, can be fixed at 8 per cent, of the capital value as on August 3rd, 1914. In cases where the standard rent, as originally fixed (that is by reference to rent then actually payable), is less than 8 por cent, of such capital value, this provision is construed to involve the ascertainment of the rent payable on August 3rd, 1914, and in some cases this information is not readily accessible. It is proposed by Clause 4of "the Bill to enable a landlord at his option to elect to fix the standard rent in the first instance, either by reference to the rent actually payable or at 8 per cent, on the then capital value. This provision does not affect the jurisdiction of n, Magistrate, on an application made under Section 20 of the Housing Amendment Act, 1920, to increase the standard rent so as to allow a net return of 7 per cent, on the capital value as on August 3rd, 1924. - The Minister explained that there were certain cases in which, by reason of changes in ownership or tenancy, at was difficult to ascertain the rent payable in respect of a house on August 3rd, 1914. Clause 5 provided for the facts being ascertained by a stipendiary magistrate, who, if he could not ascertain the facts, might fix the standard rent by reference to the capital value. Mr Wilford said the Bill was ex* tremely urgent. If it were not passed there would be thousands of evictions in Wellington. There was, however, still IV defect in the Bill: it failed to provide against an owner who declared to a magistrate that he required the house for his own use, and then, as soon as the Court made an order, immediately sold tho house or let it to someone else at a higher rent, Cases of this kind were difficult to check, but it was a point which required some safeguard. The real cause of housing shortage was the cost of building, and the Board of Trade was responsible for this excessive cost, more than, anyone else, by imposing unnecessary restrictions on the sup" ply of building material. Mr McKeen said the Bill was very good so far as it wont, but lia would like to see the Government go into the whole question of building houses and thoroughly organising the building trade and its resources for the purpose. The Hon. D. Buddo expressed the opinion that rent restriction legislation would have to be continued until the house shortage was overcome. Mr Fraser said it was regrettable that there was a crying need for continuation of the present legislation. If it were allowed to lapse> or people in Wellington alone would immediately be put out of their houses. The Hon. C. J. Parr said the difficulty was to see what could be done for tenants who voluntarily gave up their houses at the request of landlords. The objection to the Bill was, of course, that it, and similar restrictive measures, stopped speculative building. At the present timo about five thousand houses yearly were required, and if the Government was to be the solo supplier it would require five millions from London annually for this purpose alone. ■ He supported the Bill, which, however, he felt was only a palliative. Mr Forbes condemned the shortage of money in the State Advances Department. The position meant that the Department was practically cloßed down. It was hopeless for many applicants to get any money within a reasonable time. Mr Massey quoted the Government's record in house building. He recently saw some fine houses in Auckland, costing £770, exclusive of the site, which were being paid for at the rate of 35s a week. . Mr Wilford: That is too much. Mr Massey said he knew it was, but there was no doubt that the cost of building was coming down. He recently heard jf a house built at Karori for £685, and the owner was paying for it at the rate of 17s 6d a week. At Napior nice houses were built for £650. In some towns tho shortage in houses was being overtaken, but it did not appear to bo so in He did not intend to let the State Advances Department -stand, still. They had plenty of funds (3| millions) in hand for the next twelve months, but he was not going to sanction anything in the way of a boom so far as finance was concerned. He was always willing to borrow for an urgent purpose, such «s housing, but lie could not borrow unlimited millions. It would not be safe to do so. He must keep the credit of the country right, and that he was doing, as was proved by the good terms on which recent loans had been raised in Britain. Mr Sullivan expressed his pleasure at the reintroduetion of the Bill r but uregd that more should be dono under the Housing Act to provide bouses. The Minister, replying, paid that a good deal of the trouble to-day was due to tho fact that people desired houses built on too expensive a scale. No other country had done' so much as. New Zealand during the past five years to provide workers with homes. Under present conditions there was no inducement for the private capitalist to build houses for renting purposes. People did not want to live in "workers' settlements." They wished to build according to their own fancies in locality and style. Regarding the enforcement of ejections, he said the only way was for a tenant to let the owner take punitive measures. Then the tenant could go to the Dgpartment, which could take such action as it deemed advisable. The Bill was read a second time.

Committee Stage. In Committee on the Bill, Mr Fraser suggested the reinstatement of the clause relating to "undue hardship" as relating to both tenant and owner; also the inclusion of a clause dealing with cases in which people may be refused houses because they have children. Mr Monteith urged that provision should bo made to protect the tenant with small meanß and a large family, by requiring that the owner who secured the ejectment of a tenant because he required the house for his "own use" should reside in it or bo proceeded against by the Department. At present people suffering under such conditions frequently found that before they had the means to take action themselves, they were stopped by the effluxion of time. The Minister undertook to consult the Leader of the Upper House, with a view to devising moans to deal with the, difficulties mentioned. The Bill was reported without amendment, read a third, time, and passed.