APPREHENSION ON RENTS

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30466, 13 June 1964, Page 3

APPREHENSION ON RENTS

Labour Seeks Retention Of Some Controls (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, June 12. Claims that unscrupulous landlords operating in city’ and suburban areas were extorting money from tenants and developing a “rack-rent” system were made in Parliament today. Mr W. A. Fox (Opp., Miramar) sought permission to introduce the Tenancy Amendment Act which, he said, was intended to safeguard the interests of tenants. Certain restrictions on landlords laid down in the Tenancy Act of 1961 would lapse on November 18 next, which would mean tenants would then be unprotected.

Mr Fox said he knew there were good landlords as well as good tenants. It was a fact, however, that in some built-up localities new landlords, some of them foreigners, were coming in and raising the rent. He had one case where a tenant running a small business had his rent raised from £l9 to £2B 10s a week. “This is getting bad all over New Zealand,” Mr Fox said. “It is a matter of ‘accept my terms or get out.’ ” The Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) said that a year ago he and the Prime Minister had both said that if there were evidence of hardship, the existing act would be amended. “The members opposite say it is taking place now,” Mr Shand said. “I have heard heart-rending claims in the House but I have had fewer than 12 specific cases—l think seven—over 12 months. Miss M. B. Howard (Opp., Sydenham): I’ll get you some. Action Promised Mr Shand said it had been found that in some cases a landlord had been “a little groping,” but that he was not asking for more than he could get from other tenants “down the street.” “I repeat that if we have evidence of widespread hardship, we shall not hesitate to act.” he said. Mr J. Mathison (Opp., Avon): How widespread does “if” have to be? Mr Shand said the Government wanted tenancy restrictions removed because they created the atmosphere of high rents and undesirable practices in what he termed the “rotten heart” of cities, where there were many old premises. Mr Fox: I thoroughly disagree. Mr Shand said tenancy control tended to turn areas into slums. A type of landlord sprang up under these conditions who had no respect for the law and who resorted to backdoor methods. One of the aims of the 1961 act was to wipe out that type of landlord. Mr N. V. Douglas (Auckland Central) said it was a pity Mr Shand did not consider the consequences more before bringing the act into force, and particularly before passing the amendment which would permit landlords,

within a few months, to charge whatever they liked. The amendment was loaded in favour of the landlord. He | knew of cases where keymoney of from £lOO to £5OOO was being asked. Rents were being raised and Mr Shand knew it.

“He says he has investigated a dozen cases,” Mr Douglas said. “How is this? These cases do not exist until November and by that time the people will be out on the street.”

Mr S. A. Whitehead (Opp., Nelson) said that in 1961, when the-act was passed, State house rents were up 29 per cent. Last year, it was noteworthy that the Labour Department bandied 4756 rent problems. There was need for this supervision. Miss Howard said that many people did not know much about legislation. This meant that other people were taking advantage of this provision in the act thought it was not yet in force.

“My electorate suffers more from this sort of thing than most. .People do not want to shift but are being pushed out by landlords who are coming in and applying the act now,” she said. “I hope the Minister changes his mind. I ask him to come down to a little house in Sydenham.” Mr Whitehead: That is the proper place for him.

Miss Howard said that In her electorate a supermarket had taken over a cinema. All the little shops were being pushed out. “They are going to a wall. People are learning what it is to vote National.”

Ope firm selling secondhand cars put up the rent of a cripple 300 per cent so that it could get possession of the land his dwelling occupied in order to establish a car super-

market. Mr A. J. Faulkner (Opp., Roskill) said the lack of action by the Government since it introduced the 1961 bill had been a matter of policy. Was it impossible for the Minister to devise some system of arbitration to ensure that tenants of commercial business properties had some protection? asked the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nordmeyer). “Unless he can, landlords can charge whatever they wish for properties and the tenants will have no redress. “The Minister says you have your redress: look for other properties,” said Mr Nordmeyer. Mr Shand had hinted that this was not a serious problem. “There is far more widespread concern about this problem than the Minister admits.” Protection Sought A recent advertisement for a shop in Wellington with room behind asked for £3O a week rent and a goodwill payment of £5500, £2OOO of which was to be in cash. “There is nothing in the law to stop racketeering, but between now and November 18 Mr Shand should have second thoughts to protect the small tenant from the rapacious landlord,” Mr Nordmeyer said. The bill was given a first reading and was set down for a second reading “next sitting day.” As a private measure this means that it will go to the bottom of the order paper and that Government bills will take precedence. The measure can be brought forward at the pleasure of the Prime Minister—but it may still be on the order paper when the session ends.