RURAL HOUSING SCHEME

Press, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23087, 1 August 1940, Page 6

RURAL HOUSING SCHEME

£500,000 Already Involved attitude of local bodies [From OUr Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, July 31. That nearly £500,000 was involved in progress so far made under the rural housing scheme tvas mentioned by the Minister for Housing (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong) during the second reading of the Rural Housing Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives today. SiJctj'-nine county councils were favourable, artd were proceeding under the scheme, Mr Armstrong said, and loans had been granted to 18 local authorities, involving a total of £230,750. Fifty-one other local bodies had applications in for loans totalling £222,500. In addition, 76 applications had been received for temporary huts, 54 for married people and 22 for single men. . “I am wondering whether this is going to play havoc with the Housing Account,’ the Minister Concluded, “for since I believe that these buildings on farms are just as necessary as houses in towns, I have undertaken to deal with this class of building out of that account. A detailed explanation of the provisions of the Rural Housing Amendment Bill was given by Mr Armstrong. The Minister also replied to many questions asked by members of the Minister said that when a farm, on which there was a house built under the scheme, was sold, responsibility for the hou ®V\ g taken over by the new ownei. The local body would, however, be able to sue the old owner for any arrears of instalments. Question of Farm Colonies The question had been raised, Mr Armstrong added, of the possibility of housing being provided for small colonies of farm workers, but that was entirely foreign to the bill, which made provision only for the lending of money to erect dwellings on farms. It was already possible for county councils under the Counties Act or the Housing Act to borrow money from the State Advances Department, either for then own employees or for. 'other persons. ' Mr W A Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago): But will they get the 10 per cent, subThe Minister; No. That only applies to houses built under the Rufal Housing Act. , “There ate some county councils _w men trunk: that their job ends with the building of roads and bridges," Mr Armstrong added, and now that we are building roads and bridgesfor them I sometimes wonder why they exist. The Minister explained that there was provision for a 10 per cent, subsidy on the Estimates for all houses built up to December of this year. That did not apply, however, in cases where a farmer was in a position 'to brum a house without assistance. Where counties would not assist, it was possible for the btate Advances Corporation to lend money directly to a farmer, but he would then have to pay H per cent, interest instead of the 3£ per cent, provided for under the Rural Housing Act. A “Stick-in-the-mud" county Council would be to blame for that, for the farmer would also lose the subsidy. „ ~ “A good many more county, councils would have refused to assist,” Mr Armstrong added, “had it not been for the good offices of some prominent, members of the Opposition. “I welcome this as something that will attract married people to farms,” said Mr W. J. Poison (Opposition, Stratford), “and I hops the Government will go ahead as strenuously with this measure as it has in the provision of urban housing." Position of County Councils Mr Poison said that any county councils Which, were not helpful to the scheme were doing a disservice to their own, districts and the country at large. It was fortunate that use was being made of these bodies, because they understood the requirements in their own areas, and were also well aware of the needs of individual farmers. “I think the day will come when we will give the Minister power to allow any tenant in a shoddy house to build his home as ,a prior security to a mortgage," said Mr J. A. Lee .‘(Democratic Labour, Grey Lynn). He expressed the view that human interest must take precedence over cash interest, and said that housing was just as important to the nation as the prior right of a mortgagee. Mr A, .E. Jull (Opposition, 1 Waipawa), while commending the bill in general, drew attention to the dahger of over-capitalismg small farms With buildings. He considered, however, that the measure would help to iron out some of the difficulties that existed. The Minister for Lands (the Hon. F. Langston e) said local bodies had a definite responsibility, and that if they co-operated as they should there could be no doubt about the success of the scheme. *T think Ohe is justified in saying that the Government’s policy has resulted in people being taken away from the land, and it is very pleasing to, see that the Government has now realised its responsibility of getting them back,” .Said Mr W. S, Goosman (Opposition, Waikato). “The. bill is a genuine attempt to cope with one bf the most serious problems in New Zealand. It 19 the bounden duty of county councils to operate the scheme.” . Claims by Opposition members that the bill Was the type Of measure they had been advocating for years were dismissed by Mr Armstrong When he.replied to the debate. “This scheme was never advocated by any member of the Opposition, or for that matter of. the Government,” Mr Armstrong said. “In fact, I had never thought of it myself until a prominent farmer wrote to me suggesting the scheme. I was so impressed with it that I adopted it, and the result is already proving of great advantage to New Zealand farmers.” The bill Was later put through its remaining Stages and passed.