STATE TENANTS

Evening Post, Volume CXXXI, Issue 72, 26 March 1941, Page 5

STATE TENANTS

VOTING ON LOANS

CLAUSE MAY BE DEFERRED

NOT TIME TO ARGUE

Members of the Opposition, in f.he House of Reprcsentalivos yesterday, expressed strong disapproval of the clause in the Local Elections and Polls Amendment Bill providing for voting by State tenants on loan proposals. It was argued by the Opposition that if State tenants were entitled to this franchise it should also be given to other tenants. The Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser) said that while personally he thought no section should be disfranchised, he did not think they should argue over the matter at the present time. They could discuss it calmly and judiciously, and if thought necessary they could postpone it to some future occasion. *

Tlie Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr. Parry) said the amendments were strongly desired by the people. The crucial clause concerned the voting by State tenants on loan proposals.

The Hon. A. Hamilton (National, Wallace): Who asked for this clause?

The Minister said that a great number of people Jiad asked for the legislation. About 10,000 houses were occupied by State tenants. They had residential qualifications in cities and boroughs but not in road board and county council districts. They had not the vote in those areas.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Holland) said that if there were 50 tenants in a block of State flats it would mean 50 votes. It was important to remember that where an individual owned the land on which a house was built he had to pay the rates, but the State did not have to pay rates. He knew that the State had undertaken to pay the rates, but there was no obligation to do so and payment was only made when the house was occupied.

Mr. F. L. Frost (Government, New Plymouth): Would you agree to the universal franchise?

Mr. Holland: No, not in respect of a vote on loans. There should be a ratepayers' vote where money is involved.

The present Government had abolished what was known as the "bricks and mortar" vote, Mr. Holland went on. It was enacted that an elector could not have a property vole as well as a "bricks and mortar" vote and now the same Government was bringing in legislation giving State tenants a vote. If the vote " could not be given to the occupiers of private houses it should not be given to tenants of State houses. He urged the deletion of the clause. It was not calculated to promote unity at the present time.

PRIME MINISTER'S PROPOSAL,

The Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser) said that the clause giving State tenants the right to vote on loan proposals could be thrashed out in committee when the Bill was reported back. Personally he thought that no section should be disfranchised. In regard to State houses there was no vote at all. However, he did not propose to discuss the merits of the case, because he did not chink this was the time to argue over it. After all, if it was an injustice it had lasted a long time, and it could last a time yet. He was not going to work up any excitement on matters of that kind. All he desired was for the matter to be discussed calmly and judiciously. If necessary, the question of whether there should be the right to vote on loan proposals could be postponed for some future time. The Hon. J. G. Cobbe (National, Manawalu) described the clause as most dangerous and obnoxious and a blow at the rights of property owners. Mr. A. S. Richards (Government, Roskill) said there were 700 State tenants living in his district, and on their behalf lie congratulated the Government on the clause. The Opposition desired the clause to be withdrawn because it did not believe in the principle of one man, one vote. Mr. W. J. Poison (National. Stratford) contended that the Bill contained a vicious principle which would result in the Government being hoist with its own petard. If tenants were to be allowed to vote on loan proposals, they would vote for, every conceivable loan poll on the ground that it created work, and when the borough was smothered in increased rates, these tenants would ask the Government not to increase their rents. They would say that if their rents were increased they would put the Government out. In the case of both the cities and country centres a peripatetic population would be able to commit the local body to expenditure which might be colossal.

OTHER SPEAKERS

Mr. W. S. Goosman (National, Waikato) said that anyone creating a liability should assume responsibility for it, but the Bill departed from that principle. Mr. J. Thorn (Government, Thames) argued that as hospital boards were able to reduce their rating demands because oi' funds from social security, the non-ratepayevs were being risked to, pay, but were not wanted as voters. Replying, the Minister of Internal Affairs said he thought that good had accrued from the discussion, and that the Prime Minister's suggestion that the Bill now be referred to the Local Bills Committee was a good one. Evidence would be taken there, an dthey would see exactly what the position was. The Bill was read a second time and referred to the Local Bills Committee.