No rent surveillance

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32967, 13 July 1972, Page 3

No rent surveillance

From Our Own Reporter)

WELLINGTON, July 12.

The Government has considered the possibility of rent surveillance in certain areas, including Christchurch, but has discarded the idea because of difficulties.

This was stated by the Minister of Labour (Mr Thomson) in a written reply today to a question by Mr B. G. Barclay (Lab., Christchurch Central). Mr Barclay asked Mr Thomson if he agreed with the statement by the president of the CanterburyWestland Real Estate Institute (reported in "The Press” of July 4) that the demand for accommodation in Christchurch had increased rentals substantially, making investments in flats and houses for letting popular. If so, Mr Barclay asked, what steps did the Minister propose to stabilise rent increases?

Mr Thomson said he was not aware of the statistical data on which the statement was based. If. as the report stated, investment in flats and houses for flatting was becoming more popular, the Government’s policy of stimulating investment here

I would encourage the con|struction of new rental I accommodation, and would [also make more existing ! dwellings available for rent. "The Government gave (serious consideration to the possibility of some form of surveillance over rents. The ■practical difficulties of rent (control, however, are very great. Every house, flat, office, or factory or other rented accommodation would have to be separately considered in the event of any increase of rent or change of conditions of the tenancy. “It would involve the re-

establishment of the former fair rents administration, the appointment of a large number of inspectors, and the institution of court hearings. Rent controls would also set back the building of houses and flats and would retard the renovation and improvement of existing rental accommodation.

“For these reasons, the Government does not propose to take action in this area at this time, as suggested by the question, because controls would be both impracticable and selfdefeating.”