RAILWAY HOUSES

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 136, 6 December 1944, Page 7

RAILWAY HOUSES

RIGHT TO POSSESSION

PROVISION STRUCK OUT

The extension to industry of powers given in a clause in the Statutes' Amendment Bitf enabling the Railways Department to recover possession of its own houses was advogated in the House of Representatives yesterday by Opposition members, when further consideration was given to the measure. The clause provides that a Magistrate may make an order of ejectment or for recovery of possession of a railway house if it is not occupied by a railway employee and the Magistrate is satisfied either that the dwelling is required for another railway employee who is a discharged serviceman or that the house is on land required for the construction or alteration of a railway. The clause was struck out. "I would like to know why the Government hasn't seen fit to provide a similar provision for all industry," said Mr. W. S. Goosman (National, Waikato). He cited the case of a cream company employee who lived ten miles from the factory in a house owned by the company. When the employee decided to give up his job he remained in the house, and the man who was put on in his stead had to cover an additional 20 miles a day to pick up cream and deliver empty cans. Something should be done to assist companies and others in such circumstances who provided homes for their employees. It could happen that an industrial undertaking would not have a single employee of its own in houses it had specially built for its employees. NO INDUCEMENT. ■Mr. C. M. Bowden (National, Wellington West), supporting Mr. Goosman, said that under the existing law business organisations had no inducement either to purchase or to build houses for their employees. Without touching on the general question of amendment of the Fair Rents Act, it seemed reasonable to suggest that if it was right and proper for the Railways Department to be able to resume possession of its houses built for a specific purpose, then industry should be entitled to ask for the same treatment. Mr. G. H. Mackley (National, Masterton) said that the clause empowering the Railways Department to resume possession of its houses when the tenant left the Department was mainly due to the difficulty of superannuated employees getting homes when they left the service. They stayed in their house, putting the Department to inconvenience, but nothing worse tha n that suffered by private firms which provided houses for their staff. The latter were surely entitled to as much consideration as the State, but the Government was showing an inconsistency for which it was becoming notorious. The Attorney-General (Mr Mason) said the Government was m* the first Government to give the railways tr^t power—it existed in the old rent restriction legislation. It was merely a substitution for a clause that existed, and it was not the "inherent weakness" of the present Government that evolved the idea. There was a reservation protecting servicemen, and the clause would compare well enough in liberality to tenants with the clause it superseded. AMENDMENT MOVED. In the committee stage of the Bill Mr. Mackley moved that the clause be deleted and the following substituted: "If any dwelling is in the occupation of any person other than an employee of the owner thereof a Magistrate may, on the application in that behalf by the. owner of such dwelling, make an order of ejectment or for recovery of possession, notwithstanding the provisions of the Fair Rents Act, 1536, if he is satisfied that the dwelling is required by the owner for the occupation of an employee of such owner, provided, however, that nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply in the case where the occupier of the premises in question is a serviceman, whether disch rged or otherwise, or the wife or other next-of-kin wholly or substantially dependent upon such serviceman." The Prime Minister said that that amendment could not possibly be accepted,, for the simple reason that it was a direct attack on the Fair Rents Act—nothing more nor less than a roundabout method of attacking the protection tenants enjoyed, "^he clause was couched in the widest possible terms. He would rather withdraw the clause altogether than sacrifice thousands of families, which was the effect the amendment would undoubtedly have. After several more Opposition members had speken the Attorney-General said he did not know whether there was any special urgency about the clause, and the Prime Minister said he was m favour of withdrawing the clause and getting the whole matter reviewed. The clause was struck out. Mr. Mackley declared that his amendment had been submitted in the utmost good faith.