TENANCY BILL PASSED

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27795, 21 October 1955, Page 14

TENANCY BILL PASSED

MR NASH AGAIN SETS OUT OBJECTIONS “WILL EXPOSE TENANTS TO HARSHNESS” (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, October 20. The provisions in the Tenancy Bill which allowed increased rents would expose tenants to the harshness of a lopsided state of supply and demand, said the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nash) in the House of Representatives tonight, recapitulating the Opposition’s objections to the bill during the third-reading debate. The bill was passed. Landlords would be able to raise rents as much as they liked and in spite of the boasts of the Minister of Housing (Mr W. Sullivan), he could see no prospect of the alleviation of the housing shortage under the National Government, said Mr Nash.

"People cannot go elsewhere because there are no other houses available,” he said. Nor could they build homes, because the costs of building were too high. The bill was based on two fallacies expounded by the Minister, he said. One was that it would release more houses for rental, and that it would encourage persons to invest in building houses. It would not release more houses, and because there were much better investments available for persons with money it would not encourage them to build houses for others.

Mr Nash said the Opposition did not believe the bill would assist in overcoming any housing problem. Nor would it protect the good tenant from the bad landlord.

The Minister of Housing, replying to the debate, said that everything Mr Nash had said indicated that if Labour had remained the government, it would not have brought down any amendments to the Tenancy Act. During the discussion on the bill# members of the Opposition had never said they opposed an increase in rents, but implied that the Government’s action would harm tenants.

“The Opposition today seems to be preparing a volley for the general elections when its leader declares that everyone should own his own home,” said the Minister. “That’s a different policy from the previous sayings that houses should be publicly owned and privately occupied.” The Government, continued Mr Sullivan, was following the policy laid 'down when it came into office — that it would gradually ease the tenancy legislation until there was no further need for it. If anyone today had a complaint against the Government, it was the property owner, because wages had risen far beyond rent levels. Mr Sullivan said that the bill would release more houses for rental. Persons had asked him when the bill would be passed, because they then intended to let rooms and houses.