THE FAIR RENT QUESTION.

Evening Star, Issue 8529, 30 May 1891, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE FAIR RENT QUESTION.

I On Wednesday afternoon a large deputation waited upon the Hon. Mr Seddon to urge upon the Government, through him, the necessity for introducing and passing a Fair Rent Bill, applicable to ail leases of landed property. There were present —■ Messrs H. S. Fißh, D. Pinkerton, W. Hutchison, and W. Earnshaw, M.H.R.s, and Messrs G. Lawrence, E. Barningham, H. Gourley, H. Schlaadt, Houston, Bateman, E. T. O'Connell, J. White, Appleby, J. Neil, Anderson, and M'lndoe. Mr H. S. Fish said the present deputation was the result of a public meeting held some time ago with the view of asking the Government to introduce a Bill during the next session in the direction of the Fair Rent Bill. During the session of 188S or 1889 Major Atkinson introduced a Bill called the Fair Rent Bill, which related to Crown lands alone. The object of the deputation was to advocate the extension of the principle of that Bill to all properties, private or otherwise. The deputation believed that if the principle of the Bill was right, as the House had affirmed it to be, when applied co Crown lands, it must be equally right when applied to other properties. Tbey felt chat in numerous instances, all over the colony, people were paying far greater rentals for their holdings than they could afford to pay ; and private landlords, as a rule, recognised the fact, and when they saw a tenant paying too much rent they geuerally, though not always, agreed to make reductions, because they saw that if a man could not pay his rent it would bo folly to drive him into the insolvency court, and then be compelled to take less rent from somebody else. There appeared to him to be no reason why public bodies and all parties concerned should not be oompelled to act in the same manner. The principle they advocated was this: Tenants had taken leases for fourteen or twenty-one years, and so on, and it was contended that at periods of three or five years—five he believed to be short enough—they should have the right to apply to a c iurt for the readjustment of their rents; and if the court from evidence adduced thought the tenant was paying too much rent, the court should have power to assess the rent. On the other hand, however, if the tenant was paying too little and times were flourishing, so that property was worth more than the sum mentioned iu the agreement, they were perfectly willing to allow the landlord the same privilege the tenant asked for, and to get a revision of rent in his favor. This was perfectly fair, and he could not see any objection whatever to it. He might say that the Tory Press here, and possibly elsewhere, had spoken of it 119 Communistio, and all that kind of thing. He could Bee no Communism about it. There were leases of property in town for sixty or seventy years where the provisions wore that there should be a readjustment of rent every ten years ; and what was sought was to abridge the period, and to apply the same principle generally. No wrong would be done to anybody, and there was nothing Communistic about the proposal. It simply meant that the whole of i ; : tenants' property should not be ruthlessly sacrificed to the ruthless cupidity of the ground landlord, woo said that so long as the tenant had anything at all the full rental, no matter how exorbitant it might be, should be exacted. As an illustrative instance, he might mention tnat the Dunedin Corporation forced a tenant because he had means to pay L 7 10s per foot for a frontage to Manse street, while the next allotment was let at 32s 6d per foot, its former holder having become insolvent; so that the land waß surrendered and relet. la another case an unfortunate leaseholder, whose takings were Lls per week, had to pay in ground rent L 5 per week, with the certain prospect of consequent insolvency and consequent loss to the tradesmen who were unforuunate enough to give him credit. They did not desire to run amuck at property ; they did not come as Communists, but with a fair appreciation of the rights of property, to say that the rights of property must never extend to the length of crushing a man who ought not to be crushed, and to prevent people from beiog driven into the iusolvency court. Where bo serious an iojustice can happen there should be a readjustment of the terms of lease possible. They desired to enter a protest againßt the scathing condemnation which the Tory papers here had poured upon the attempt to tec the Government to consider the fair reut question Property holders, he admitted, had a right to every consideration, but it appeared to him that there must be considerations for those other than property holders—for those who had to pay for the use of property. Mr D. Pinkerton thought the present agitation had not perhaps been brought about by the whole body of landholders, but by some who insisted upon what waß grossly unjust. The principle the deputation advocated he believed to be just and right. It was recognised in some leases granted in this City for long periods, and what was asked was that the same principle should become law, so that the holder of the land should take a share in the consequences resulting from any lengthened period of depression, and should also have the benefit of improved tinns. If a number of years were fixed, at the end of which the property could be revalued, surely that would give a fair guarantee that the person renting the land could afford to pay for it, and for an independent court to say whether the rent should hi raised or lowered must be the fairest of all. As it was, if a tenaut had spent some thousands of pounds in building, then he could be compelled to pay a rental which, owing to changed conditions, was extortionate, or else the whole of his property was confiscated by the ground landlord. He thought that consideration should be paid to this, and that what the fair rent deputation asked was that provision in law should be made to fairly and justly meet the case. Mr W. Hutchisox thought that one or two examples would bring the matter more stiikir.gly before the Minister than any suetehes could do, There were two individuals in the room who rented apiece of ground, not more than a quarter of an acre in extent, for which they pud a ground rent of L 2.000 per year. It seemed almost incredible that such a sum should be paid in Dunedin for a quarter-acre corner section; but that was the sum that had to be paid regularly. TnoEe gentlemen had put up a building on the land worth L4O 000. The owner of the ground allowed valuation for the property at the end of the lease, but if default rvere made in the payment of ground reut then the whole of this property fell into the hands of the ground landlord, without a single penny going to the firm or to their creditors. The probability Was that the purchaser of the allotment paid LlO for it—(Mr M'lxdok: " Ll2 10s was the price paid")—and he would venture to say that he had never *pent a penny from that day to this upon it, and nqw he was drawing on account of it L2.00Q per year, which the tenapts were, in point of fact - , unable to pay, and which was entirely crushing them. There were other Cise3 of much the same character, but that was one that might fix attention. In another c.16-3 the leaseholder of a section had built three shops, two of which he let for some time at 30s each per week, but now he was content to take half that amount for them | while nis ground rent remained at the eame sum as previously—it not being possible to get any reduotion. These cases were merely typical, and the only answer to their claims was that "a bargain was a bargain." Now, a bargain was not a bargain unless it was fair and just—that was ] what they submitted ; and if an agreement made would not stand the scrutiny of common sense and the test of ordinary justice, that bargain ought not to be adhered to. They did not eay that at any time the person who had to pay the money' should decide what he had' to pay. ' They made no such outrageous demand; but they said: Set up a competent court that will carry with it the confidence of the community , at large, and let that court decide what the rent should be— a fair rent as between landlord and tenant. If the landlord . thought that he was aggrieved, %he conrt ; wonld be open to him the same as to the leaseholder j and every three or five years, • as might be considered be9t, these decisions i of the court could be obtained, and would [ be conclusive and binding upon all parties, r In saying that they were not seeking to lay f down any new principle. As Mr Seddon was aware, in 1889 there was a Bill, which

became law, providing that deferred-pay-ment tettlera and the holders of perpetual leases should have their cases looked into and their payments readjusted. That power was given to the Land Board; and though he did not think that body was the best court to do it, the Land Board had given relief to a Urge number of tenants. The Act was only in operation for one year, and had ceased on the 31st December last. Then Sir Harry Atkinson had brought in a Bill, in addition to that, called the Fair Rent and Prtoe of Lands Bill. The Minister was no doubt conversant with that Bill. It seemed to be rather cumbrous, and it lacked the one point that the other did, for it gave power to have rents read justed of all kinds, excepting the rents paid to private landownere. The members of the deputation olaimed that any arrangement made for the adjust* ment of rents should apply to trustees, to churches, to corporations, and to land owners of all sorts. All should be liable to have their rents readjusted upon proof being given that they were not fair and just, and he would remark that nothing was asked for without Buch proof. The matter had been brought before the Premier, for he had himself taken the opportunity of bringing it before him, but very likely in the hurry of matters Mr Seddon had had no opportunity of discussing it. The Premier had, however, replied to him on this subject to this effect: " I am in receipt of your communication, and I have read carefully the documents you enclosed, and can have no doubt of the grievance under which many tenants suffer, and of the strong case made out for some effective legislative remedy. The subject will receive the earnest attention of the Government." Then comes in what frequently appears in Government letters: " But I fear that in consequence of the large reforms promised on other subjects they will not be able to undertake to submit legislation in the ensuing session. It will of course be open to yourself or any private member to bring in a Bill." Mr Fish : It must be done by the Government.

Mr Hutchison said he gave no opinion on that point, but he thought that likely to be the case. Now they were anxious for the assistance of the Minister's known sympathy in this matter. He thought they had established a clear case for consideration, and was quite sure that when the time to consider it arrived it would be seen that all they wanted was plain, simple justice, and he had no doubt that they would get that at the hands of the Government.

Mr W. Earnshaw, M.H.R., could only say that he very strongly supported the desire that the Government should take into conßideratien the necessity for dealing with the subject. He, however, altogether differed from Mr Fish in the remark that these proposals were not communistic, It waß because to him that they were socialistic that he believed in the proposed measure, which would simply controvert the position that a man should do as he liked, and as long as he liked, with hia land. He asserted that it waß desirable in the interests of the community that the owners of land should go to the courts for the periodical readjustment of their rents, so that the land might be let at only at its fair commercial value for the time being. That being so, the object of the deputation had his entire sympathy, and he believed that in leaving it in the hands of the Minister they left the matter with one who also regarded it with strong sympathy. Mr Pinkkrton, M.H.R., could say that a property at the corner of Rattray street was bough'; years ago for an absentee for L2O, and that some time tfter that absentee drew from the property the sum of L7OO annually, and he was drawing that now, though he never contributed in any way in the progress, or helped to bear the burdens of the country. Mr E. T O'Connell said the matter had been so fully laid before the Minister that it was scarcely necessary to go further into details. All that was contended for was that there should be something like fairness and justice as between landlords and tenants. The owners of land were, in. a great number of instances, absentees. There were 1,300 holders of property in New Zealand who were absent from the oolony j and a great number of people who took up leases eight or ten years ago were now struggling hopelnssly to pay the demands of the landlords in order to save the forfeiture of their properties to the landowners. What they contended was that there should be some protection for the man who made improvements upon the land ; that his capital should be regarded as well as that of the landlord ; and that in the event of a depreciation taking place that the landlord should not olaim the whole, but should share the loss and the misfortune with the tenant. This claim instead of being as it had been termed robbery, waß nothing but the protection of the tenant's rights ; and it was the landlord who took away the property of individuals, because of a general depreciation in land values, who should be called the spoliator and the robber. In a great number of instances the landlords themselves bad helped to bring about this particular depression which had reduced the land values in New Zealand. They had helped to produce this state of things by drawing from the colony and spending elsewhere the jroperty which was created in it. If the money that waa earned here were expended here it would create a large amount of property and help the colony onward, so that benefits would accrue to all. Tbey had no objection to the landlords receiving the unearned increment, but they asked that in times of depression there should be some means given by whioh a judicial tribunal could investigate these matters, and adjust them in a spirit of justice and equity as between man and man. He might mention that so cautious and influential a gentleman as the Hon. W, Downie Stewart had expressed his entire concurrence with the views held by the members of the Fair Rent League, and had said that he considered a readjustment of rentals every few years was absolutely necessary in the colonies in consequence of the changes from iuflation to depression that took He considered, therefore, that the Hon. Mr Stewart might be relied upon to give hearty support to such a measure as was suggested. There was on the side of the Fair Rent League justice, but the landlords, in many instances, would not listen to either reason or justice, and there should, therefore, be some means of compelling them to do so. Mr M'lndoe must take exoeption altogether to the remarks made. Being an old member of the House, and connected for many years with politics, he wished to say that too much labor and trouble was cast upon the Government, and that there should be more self-reliance. There now seemed to be no self-reliance or independence exercised, but when there was any depression experienced they ran to the Government and asked the Government to put matters right. The Government should never look upon such questions as this.. He could tell them this: that he and another had bought the land where the Bank of Australasia was built, and had paid LI,OOO to the Provincial Government for it; but finding that there was something wrong in the drainage they bad got the Government to recoup them the amount, and the land was shortly afterwards sold for a far bigger turn,-(A Voice: "You should not have gone to the Government.") —He had not gone to the Government for it.— (Anoteer Voice ; " You did, and got your money back.") The Hon. Mr Seddon asked if it was not a fact that the deputation was one of gentlemen in favor of a Fair Rent Bill. It seemed to him that they were scarcely united. Mr M'lndon : I am in favor of a Fair Rent Bill—you may be sure of that. Mr Fish thought that Mr M'lndoe was thinking about other planks in the platform of some of the gentlemen who formed the deputation ' Mr Sepdon : T£our contention, is that the Government ha?e nothing whatever to do with the question. Mr M'lndoe : They have to do with the I land certainly.

Mr Skddon : The question of the adjustment of the land you contend the Government hag nothing %o do with, and you disagree with the representations made by the qther gentlemen on that point ? Mr M Inpoe said that was not so altogether, To a certain extent he was with them, but some of the remarks that had been made were very much against his mind, though he was oommunistio and sooialistio to the backbone. However, he would not say more.

Mr J. Njil also spoke strongly in anpport of the proposal for a periodioal adjustment of rents as between landlord and tenant.

Mr Uoubley sympathised with the object of the gentlemen who formed the deputation, and thought it waß well that the question should be fully ventilated. After arguing very much on the same lines as the previous spea!;f-', he said that if to obtain justice in this manner was communistic in prinoiple, then righteousness and justice were communistic, and to that extent he was prepared to approve of Communism. Mr Fish remarked that an Act such as they had been discussing, being compulsory, would relieve corporate bodies from the terrible fear of having tneir motives aspersed, as they would be if under the existing law they determined to do what was right and just and proper. The Hon. Mr Swddon said: Mr Fish and gentlemen, I agree with what has been said as to the importance of this matter. I look upon it as being one of the most important questions that can be brought before the Legislature. One must recognise first of all that the people have the right to govern themselves. That, of oourse, must be so, and to govern themselves in the interests of all concerned—that is, of all governed. Of course that is but another truism. It is also true that we must recognise the rights of property, or else no one would be safe; but there is this: I believe we oan recognise the rights of property as the rights of property should be recognised without violating any of the principles of justice. That, I believe, can and should be done. We have laid down this prinoiple before in giving relief to Crown tenants, and it was found neoessary, because persona during an inflated period or in consequence of the system of land purchase adopted by legislation had been forced to buy at auction, had run the price of lands up, and had given more for it than it was worth. The Crown found that to have been j the case. Parliament made provision that j within a certain time a readjustment of | those payments should be allowed, That law was passed, and that relief was granted. Then came the next Bill dealing with local authorities who are landlords having land endowments for apecifio purposes. The difficulty in this case was that the various public bodies had, upon the strength of their endowments which had been leased, borrowed large sums of money for the execution of works, and if the Crown gave the right to a readjustment of rents they would claim against the State for the amount of their loss by such readjustment. You see when you come face to face with the difficulties how serious the matter becomes. Now, I may say it was a matter very much akin to this that brought me into public life—whether for good or ill I do not know, but that is the fact. The Education Board of the district had a large reserve, and were making such exorbitant demands upon the miners that it almost prevented Kumara from being a goldfield, though it bas employed many men, and has been one of the most profitable goldfields in the colony. Owing to the rents claimed the men were gettiog disgusted and leaving. I then argued that they should send someone to Parliament to make out their case, and get Parliament to pass an Act giving relief. What was known as the Kumara Eduoation Reserves Aot was passed. The Bill appeared in my name, and was carried and gave the relief, for it placed the reserve under the warden to administer under the same conditions as the Crown lands, That Baved ua from our difficulties. I see the difficulties in your case, and how hardly it presses in a place like Dunedin, where there is so much land held under lease from corporate bodies, but I mention that to show you how the matter was dealt with when a particular locality was affected. The members for the rest of the colony admitting the hardship in that part of the country, and seeing the injury that was being done was a national injury, remedied it. I believe that this question is in Dunedin of greater gravity than elsewhere, because here nearly all the lauds are held on a leasehold tenure. Whether, under the circumstances, seeing yonr somewhat exceptional position, this should be deal with by means of a local or a general Bill, I cannot exactly say. There would, in my opinion, be greater difficulty in getting a general Bill passed, for you find that when an Act has been passed under which local authorities can come voluntarily the local authorities do not come under it. Whether or not the Legia lature should do away with the voluntary character of the measure and make it compulsory is a question that must be considered. As regards the principle of adjustment applied between landlord and tenant, outside of corporate bodies, we can go to the Old Country for guidanoe, and we find that in extreme cases, where a country is oppressed and the people are driven away, it has been thought best that a measure such as you ask for should be introduced to Parliament. We have these things to guide us, and I may say that the matter has been before the Cabinet, with the result shown in the Premier's letter to Mr Hutchison. That shows the result of the Cabinet's deliberations. You know my views upon this matter, and I can tell you they are shared in to a large extent by my colleagues, and particularly by the Premier. At the same time, we have first of all the question which deals with the same subject in another way—the adjustment of taxation; the land tax versus the Property Tax. We feel pretty well sure that one matter alone will take up nearly the whole of the session. It is anticipated that there will be a very severe and prolonged struggle hefore we shall be able to carry our financial proposals, and we are afraid that this session there will be no chance x>i getting a Fair Rent Bill through; and if we took the responsibility and then were not able to carry it through, we might be afterwards told that if we had left it to a private member to take up the Bill and had given assistance it might have been carried. On the whole, then, we think it is better to leave it an ope. question till we see how the business of the House progresses. That i 8 the potuion. There is no übo saying you have our sympathy, because that without help does not count for much. The Government, however, feel that, looking to the position of New Zealand throughout, knowing the difficulties, the prices given for land, and how greatly changed for the worse things are, there is a real absolute necessity that the matter should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. I may say this: that I will put your representations before the Premier on my return to Wellington, and that so far as lies in my power I will do the best I can to assist you in what I consider to be your very serious difficulties. Mr Fish expressed his satisfaction with the manner in which the Minister had met the deputation upon thi3 question, and said that the deputation did not expeot the Government to do anything that was impossible, or even unreasonable —they were content wtyh the assurance of sympathy they had received.