BUSINESS TENANTS GET APPEAL RIGHTS

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30541, 9 September 1964, Page 3

BUSINESS TENANTS GET APPEAL RIGHTS

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter)

WELLINGTON, September 8.

. The Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) was in a difficulty over business tenancies because of National Party policy, said Mr N. E. Kirk (Opp., Lyttelton) in Parliament today when Mr Shand introduced the Tenancy Amendment Bill. The bill lays down the procedure for a tenant, who feels a landlord has unjustly refused a renewal of a tenancy or is claiming exorbitant rent, to apply to the Magistrate’s Court for a new tenancy.

Mr Shand said the bill was solely concerned with those business premises the tenancies of which would expire on November 18 next.

In 1961, Mr Shand had said it was Government policy to remove gradually the penal provisions of the Tenancy Act with a view to their ultimate abolition, said Mr Kirk. At no time since had the Prime Minister or any member of the Government suggested this policy had been changed. In the event, Mr Shand had been proved completely wrong, but the Opposition welcomed the change, said Mr Kirk. Mr Shand replied that if the Government had done nothing about the Tenancy act it would have encouraged self-perpetuating trouble in the dead hearts of cities. “We must have reasonable opportunities for rebuilding in valuable shopping areas. “I agree that if the Government had done nothing it would not have got into a difficulty. 1 would sooner tackle an awkward problem and get into some difficulties,” said Mr Shand. It was right to get rid of restrictions on business premises and he expected that

there would be no great difficulty with shop premises as there was now virtually none with office premises. Mr W. A. Fox (Opp., Miramar) said this was a badlyneeded bill and he welcomed it. Dr. A. M. Finlay (Opp., Waitakere) claimed that one Auckland man, who “contributed to National Party funds” would be disappointed. This man had bought property expecting to make a large capital gain as a result of Government policy. This bill was contrary to National Party policy, said Dr. Finlay. The Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) said there was nothing in National Party policy at the last General Election about business tenancies. In every election, until the last, the National Party had said it would progressively remove tenancy restrictions. “That is what we have done.” “Everyone wants to see a fair deal. We will never get perfection. We want a reasonable balance. There will

t be some suffering on both > sides,” said Mr Holyoake. In a broadcast election speech, he had said the Gov- • ernment would not hesitate ■ to amend the law if it were I abused. But the Government was loathe to amend the law. , In reply to further ques- ! tions about Government elec- ■ tion policy, Mr Holyoake ' quoted from his radio speech . in which he had said his at- • tention had been drawn to i some cases which had been t extremely bad. ; In 1961, the Government I considered that three years’ . notice of a change in the law • was sufficient But there had ; been a greater demand on ' buildings than had been an- ! ticipated three years ago with ■ the boom in business. This bill should apply to 1 only a few cases, but it • would be for a court, not for ■ bargaining, to decide what a : fair rent would be. Mr Kirk said tenants of i business premises had had ; three years of worry and con- ■ cern because of the Victorian policy of the Government.