The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 1950. Tenancy Amendment Bill

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26187, 10 August 1950, Page 4

The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 1950. Tenancy Amendment Bill

Widespread misunderstanding of the scope and provisions of the Tenancy Amendment Bill has been caused by the Opposition’s attempt in the House of Representatives to make political capital of the word “ land’ord ”. The unnecessarily protracted second reading debate has given many landlords the impression that the bill will give them freedom to evict tenants almost at will, and many tenants the impression that they have lost their statutory protection. They can hardly be blamed for forming such erroneous impressions, since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Fraser) tried to get the measure renamed “ The Tenants’ Protection “ and Rent Restriction Extinction “ and Annulment Bill Three things should be said to remove public misconceptions. First, a great number, perhaps the large majority, of existing tenancies are not affected by the bill. Secdnd, the bill introduces no major principles that were not in the Labour Government’s own Tenancy Act of 1948, except that it gives the owners of business premises some rights formerly denied to them. Third, the bill in no way interferes with the rent-fixing procedure that protects tenants.

A clear summary of the bill was printed on its introduction, and there have been no major amendments since. But so much confusion has been spread from the Labour benches in the last fortnight that it is useful to explain some of the major provisions again. Clause 2, which was most hotly attacked by the Opposition, provides that in a new tenancy a landlord and tenant may' agree that the present restrictions on the landlord’s regaining possession shall not apply, provided- that the terms of the agreement have the approval of a rents officer. The Opposition’s condemnation of this clause, on the ground that it would permit “ con- “ tracting out ” of the act, was a little hollow, because the same principle was applied by the Labour Government to former servicemen and short-term tenants. Another clause the Labour members professed to find alarming gives an employer greater rights in recovering a house he may let in future to an employee as a condition of employment. . This clause certainly goes further than a somewhat similar provision in the main act; but few will think that, if a house goes with a job, the worker should retain the house if he leaves the job. The principal act provided that alternative accommodation need not be found for a displaced tenant by a person who had owned a house for five years and needed it for his own occupation. It is not unreasonable, except in terms of Labour propaganda, for an amendment two years later to reduce the period of five years to three years, as the bill does. The bill permits a man aged 60 or a woman aged 55 to get possession of a house he or she has owned for three years without proving greater hardship or offering alternative accommodation. This again is only an advance on the existing provision applying to old age pensioners. The bill does change the existing law by removing the possession restrictions where a tenant transfers the tenancy of business premiles; but, apart from the considerable merit of this change, the tenant is given the right of appeal to the Court.

There is nothing very new in principle in the bill, and nothing very horrifying. It is an honest and commendable attempt by the Government to restore to the owner of property a part of his former rights while protecting the good tenant in a time of housing shortage. And it will materially encourage the letting of hpuses and business premises. A simple measure of the logic in the criticism by Labour members is found in their frequent allegations of recent evictions. If there have been evictions, they have been under the Labour Government’s own legislation. Ths Tenancy Amendment Bill is still only a bill. As such it has no legal effect yet, and there can therefore have been no evictions under it. Labour members of Parliament know this full well.