TRAFFIC IN HOUSES

Evening Star, Issue 19019, 14 August 1925, Page 2

TRAFFIC IN HOUSES

STATE AS MORTGAGEE criticism of amending bill lit the House of Representatives last evening, the Press Association reports, the Hon. William Nosworthy (Minister of Finance) _ moved the second reading of the Housing ■Amendment Bill. He explained tha by the State Advances Amendment Act, 1922, the administration of the Housing Act, 1919, was transferred to the Stain Advances Office, and the functions of the Housing Board were assumed by the State Advances Board. Under the Housing Act, workers’ dwellings were sold on the system of time payment, the purchaser having only an equitable interest iu the property until the purchase was completed. Ou completion of purchase, he was entitled to receive a certificate of title, which was, however, issued subject to certain restrictions as to any future disposition of property. When the work of the Housing Board was taken over by the State Advances Board the policy of the latter board was to surrender its right under its agreements to purchase and to come in under the ordinary advances to workers’ system. To facilitate this, section 7 of the State Advances Amendment Act, 1923 was passed. By virtue of that section and of arrangements made under it, persons who entered into agreements to purchase their homes under the Housing Act became owners in fop simple of their properties, subject in each case to a mortgage to secure the loan made by the Advances Office. When that loan was repaid and the mortgage discharged the owner would hold his title free of restriction. There existed, however, an anomaly in that all persons who had completed the purchase of their dwellings prior to the passing of the 192-3 amendment received their titles, subject to restrictions imposed by the earlier legislation. The purpose of the Bill was to remove that anomaly and to put all prior purchasers in ns favorable a position as if they bad come within the scheme ns now administered. The principal disability resulting from the restrictions now sought to bo removed was that tho restricted title was much loss valuable as security if tho owner were in need of financial assistance. To accomplish tho purposo of the Bill, it was proposed to repeal section 21 of the Housing Act, 1919, and sub-sec-tion 207 of section 22 of that Act. Mr T. K. Sidey said that, when tho Advances Department took over tho housing scheme it was distinctly understood that workers’ houses wore not to bo interfered with. He wished tho Minister to say, when replying, how many houses had been built under the workers’ dwellings scheme since the Advances Department took over control of housing. Ho did not see much harm in the Bill, to which ho would not offer any opposition, Mr M. .1, Savage said he did not think the Bill was so simple as Mr Sidey seemed to suppose. It practically meant opening the way to trafficking in public credit. Many of these houses wore built by tho Slate at a cost of about £tioo. If this Rill were passed, who was to say that these houses would not ho sold for £I,OOO and upwards? From newspaper advertisements O' his hands, there wore upwards of forty properties for sale with Government mortgages on them. This simply meant that there were some forty Government mortgages for sale. Now they wme asked to pass a Rill which would further open tho door to the sale of these desirable securities. He wanted to know who was asking for this concession. Was it the occupiers of the houses or was it the class of people who were making a living out of this sort of traffic P The House should know where the inspiration came from. He was satisfied that speculative elements were behind tho Bill. The Hon. Mr M'Lood said this Bill would not exaggerate the evils which were to .some extent associated with the system of State lending, and it would not bo long before the whole system now in vogue would be reviewed. Originally the idea of Slate lending was to aid settlers in making improvements, but that stage of lending had been passed, and the State had now become a huge mortgaging institution. "While on tho face of it there were objections to permitting trafficking in houses, actual experience proved that the number of persons who had legitimate reasons for transferring properties was very groat, and it was a difficult matter for the Minister to go into every case and determine whether or not it was a transfer which should be approved. This Bill would not detrimentally affect the position, but bo admitted that the position would have to be largely reviewed. Mr H. T. Armstrong said that if this Bill were tho only measure which the Government was bringing down this session to solve the housiim problem, then it had miserably failed, because the housing problem was more acute to-day than ever it had been. This Bill removed the last little bit of legislation which brought homes within the reach of the workers, and delivered the whole position into the hands of speculators. He had no objection to workers transferring their homos if needs must, but before that transfer took place the money loaned by the State should be' returned to the State, because that money was loaned to tho borrower to get a borne with, not to gamble with. Ho would have to vote against the Bill.

Mr F. J. Rollestou (Timaru) said i lhat there was evidently some misap- ( prehension about the Hill, ivhich meant I that no transfer could take place un- J less tho whole State advance had been I repaid; therefore all arguments about i traffioldng in State mortgages foil to j tho ground. | A Labor Member: The Government i did not explain the Hill in that wiry; j apparently it does not understand its i own Bill. ( Mr F. N. Barlram said that the Go- ! vernment had failed in its duty be- i cause it had not limited the price of j houses. It was useless to expect tho j workers to go into houses valued nt j over £I,OOO. The effect of specula- j tion in houses must he to put up the | price of houses. The Labor Party was not out to encourage speculation in houses. Ho would vote against the Bill.

Mr 0. Hawkon said tho Bill simply enabled a man who paid for Ids homo to have tha right to sell without tho consent of the Minister, and there could be no objection to that. Labor’s opposition to tlio Bill was unreasonable. Mr P. Fraser said tho whole spirit of the housing legislation was to “ provide and protect” houses for the people, and not for the benefit of speculators. If the Bill were passed then the houses which wore intended for workers would come into the open market and pass into tho hands of people who wore not workers, and for whom the Government made other provision, tn spite of wdiat the member for Timaru had said, he maintained that this legislation was wrong. He regarded the 1919 Housing Act as the best housing legislation over passed in this country, and be appealed to the Governmerit to carry it out, Mr J. A. Nash argued that a worker should be allowed to soil his house at a profit if ho could do so. Mr E. -I. Howard said that to-day a worker could sell his house at a profit, but there was limitation as to whom he could soli. This Bill did awaywith that limitation, and the house could be sold to anyone at any old price he could get for it, and the result would be that land agents would go round end get houses put on the market, and some poor deluded immigrants would have to through tho nose for: thorn.

The discussion was currier! on by Messrs Harris, Forbes, Veiteli, M'Kay, Corrigan, and .Horn, who supported the Bill, and Messrs Langstone, Sullivan, and Parry, who opposed it. After the Minister had briefly replied, during which ho his intention of going on with the Bill, the measure was road a second time without division.