LANDLORDS AND TENANTS

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 November 1932, Page 7

LANDLORDS AND TENANTS

DISCUSSION IN COUNCIL RENTS v. RESPONSIBILITIES [per press association.] WELLINGTON, November 11. The Legislative Council met at 2.30 p.m. Moving the second reading of the Rent Restriction Bill, Sir J. Parr said the Government had deemed it necessary to continue the operation of the legislation for another year. Mr. McCallum: Will this be the last time? Sir J. Parr: I don’t know, but one would hope so. He added that the legislation only applied to houses built before 1920, and thus was restricted to a comparatively small section of dwellings.

Sir F. D. Bell said it was the fault of the Council to a, large extent that no provision existed to-day by which a magistrate could determine the rent it was possible for people to pay, and thus prevent evictions. It had been said that the Bill interfered with the rights of landlords, but the Government had deemed it necessary to pass legislation interfering with the rights of mortgagees, and the Court had power to wipe out the arrears of interest, but there was no provision for remitting arrears of rent. So long as unemployment existed, he hoped that the Government would recognise it was not only a question of providing taxation for the unemployed, but the landlord, like the mortgagee, should have to play his part in the relief of such sorrowful conditions as ruled to-day. No one had greater respect for property than he had, but he had more sense of the duties of property, than some members. Those who were in possession of the freehold of small tenements occupied by people in distress, should be placed by legislation in the same position as mortgagees. The State should not only protect property but should also protect those in distress.

Mr. Hanan said that he sympathised with the position of tenants but they had also to consider the landlord with moderate means. There were many owners of houses to-day who were in just as bad a position as tenants, as they depended on the rent of houses fox* a livelihood. It had to be remembered there were lenient landlords as well as bad ones. He considered that the landlord should not be singled out but the State should recognise the principles of common obligations and equality of sacrifice. Sir J. Pari’ said the principles advocated by Sir F. D. Bell would be disastrous to the landlord and would lead to bankruptcy. Landlords, as a whole were doing their duty to the country, and he did not think there had been many evictions. The Bill was read a second time, put through the remaining stages without discussion, and passed. Moving the second reading of the Pensions Amendment Bill, Sir J. Parr said the Bill reinstated the miners’ widows’ pensions. Mr. Fagan said that all workers contracting diseases while following their calling should have the right to compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

The Bill was read a second time, put through the remaining stages without discussion, and passed. The Council rose at 3.45 until Wednesday next. HOUSE APPROVES ESTIMATES The following classes of estimates were passed in the House of Representatives, this afternoon: Prisons Department £89,000; Agriculture £537,652; Mines £23,536, Labour £50,572. During the discussion on the vote for the Agricultural Department, Mr. Mason asked how many settlers were placed on land under the ten-acre farm scheme. Mr. MacMillan said the settlers numbered 550 and the acreage of the holdings varied from eight to fifty acres. The predominating holding carried from six to seven cows.

Discussing the vote for the Labour Department, Mr. Savage urged that a complete investigation be made into the conduct of the Labour Bureaux activities throughout the Dominion in respect to the treatment of the unemployed. He alleged that the whole system was unsatisfactory. The House rose at 5.50 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday. SUPERANNUATION BILL. WELLINGTON, November 11. There is a possibility that the Superannuation Bill will not be finally dealt with this session. It is known that the Select Committee has a long task in hearing evidence, and as the passage of the measure is dependent upon. the Committees report, it may be impossible + o deal with the Bill before Christmas. Mr Forbes indicated in an interview to-day that it is not intended to force the measure through, but a decision to postpone the Bill depended upon the progress made by the committee. It is known that the Labour Party intends to use every form of the House to oppose the Bill. It may therefore, be found difficult to get the Bill through, unless the session continued over Christmas. Mr Forbes said that the Government intended to take measures to put the funds in a sound position.