Housing Policy

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27112, 7 August 1953, Page 8

Housing Policy

The Government gave the national housing conference an excellent start with the progressive policy announced by the Acting-Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake). It is a policy chiefly designed for those who want to own their own houses; and in that it accords with the prevailing sentiment in New Zealand. The Government will help people to get their own houses by giving building societies and other lending institutions ah indemnity permitting them to lend far above their normal limits on the value of houses, and by offering through the State Advances Corporation a logical, if novel, repayment system, under which instalments will be least when family responsibilities are greatest. These are two excellent methods of assistance the State is peculiarly fitted to give. The Government has followed up its commendable search for lower cost building methods by accepting lower-priced construction of good standard as acceptable loan security. This should serve more than an immediate purpose, since it will help to overcome conservative prejudices in other quarters against innovations—and will encourage innovation. A logical development would be for the conference to take the first steps towards the establishment of a national building research institute, which is needed to systematise and maintain the quest for ways of making all building cheaper. A point in this connexion is that no attention, either in the preliminaries to the conference or in the Government policy, was given to the use of more permanent materials than timber. With longer life and less maintenance, such houses offer a valuable field for research. The Government’s policy also promises help to those who wish to build their houses with their own hands and to employers who wish to build for their staffs. However, the important point for future builders is the prospect that they will be able to house themselves for about £2 a week (plus rates, insurance, and maintenance) if they can provide £3OO in cash, or less if they can get the lease of a section. At the present level of wages this would not be a burden in the many cases where it would represent not much more than one day’s pay a week. There may be some room to argue that the Government should have produced this policy earlier. On the other hand it is true, as Mr Holyoake said, that circumstances have never been more favourable for its adoption. One major, and regrettable, omission from the policy statement (which may yet be made good) was any reference to slum clearance. There are many pockets of land with decadent housing in the four

main cities and most of the larger towns. These areas present at once the greatest need for housing improvement and the greatest opportunity to get serviced, convenient building sites at prices that are reasonable in relation to their position. Continued extension on to good farm land while there is land virtually idle nearer the centre is false economy. The community has to pay heavily for the unnecessary extension of services. Possibly the present slum clearance legislation is faulty; if so, it should be amended. It may be that both central and local government authorities need urging to tackle this vital aspect of the housing question. Whatever the reason, progress has been too slow. This is something the conference should tell the Government.