PARLIAMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 21 October 1942, Page 4

PARLIAMENT

FAIR RENTS BILL WELLINGTON, October 20. The House met at 2.30 p.m. The Statutes Amendment Bill was reported back from the Statutes Envision Committee without amendment. The Bill was passed without amendment. Mr Mason, in moving the second reading of the Fair Rents Amendment Bill, said that it was important in wartime 'to protect tenants from ejectment, so long as they oehaved themselves. Referring to a clause

dealing with prospective tenants with children, he said that theie was a claus<? which made it an offence for a property-owner to inquire if a person had children. This would be deleted. It had been taken from Australian legislation, but it went too far. The whole idea of this Bill was to prevent rents from undergoing undue increases, and the assessment of a fair rent had been left to the

Magistrates. , , , Mr Holland said that he believed that every member would agree that control was essential during wartime, but they wanted to see that it was fair. The owner of a dwelling who refused to let five or six children occupy one room was liable to a penalty of £5O. Mr Holland adeted that

he had already received several communications about the Bill. He suggested that the original Act should fie extended as suggested, and the remainder of the Bill postponed until they met in December. Mr Fraser said the Bill was intricate, and he would be agreeable to taking the second reading and leaving the committee stage until the ’last dav of the sitting. vVhen the House resumed at 7.30, Mr Endean (Nat., Remuera), . said that the clause in the Bill relating to children appeared to him to violate

the primary principles of property ownership. There also seemed to be a reversal in the accepted principle of British justice where the onus was placed on the property-owner to ; prove that he had not refused a ienancy because of children. L Mr Combs (Govt., Wellington ; Suburbs) said that there were houses ■ in Wellington where the rental absorbed half of the income of the > tenant, with the result that social security had to be relied on to balance the family budget. That was not right, and this Bill would help to correct it. k , Mr Acland (Nat., Temuka) said he felt that an injustice was being done to men serving in the Forces. Many of these men had left their homes, and because they could not be kept going on service pay, they had let tenants in. Under this Bill, it seemed that they were to be denied the right-to return to those homes until one year after the war was over, unless they could prove a greater hardship than the tenant. If a man was prepared to leave his home to light for his country, it seemed wrong that he should have to go before a Magistrate to recover possession of his home when he returned. I\/Tv ■Rrnorl font ciicrp'Pßt pd that. to

meet what was undoubtedly a necessity and to encourage large families, as well as to assist in the provision of suitable housing, a tenant should be allowed to claim from the State, until accommodation could be provided, a rental allowance for each child over two in number. Mr Richards (Govt., Roskill) said that in the last live years, there had been more buildings erected than in any previous of twenty-five or thirty years. But another 50,000 houses were needed. Mr Doidge (Nat., Tauranga) said that the housing position represented a public scandal after a Socialist Government had been seven years in office. Under State control, the housing situation could not be coped with. The methods were too slow, and the costs were too high. Mr Webb said that he had had personal experience of very distressing cases in Wellington owing to the scarcity of houses. The measure under consideration was overdue. The Bill was read the second time. The House rose at 10.3'0 until 2.30 tomorrow. LEGISLATIVE' COUNCIL.

WELLINGTON, October 20. The Legislative Council met this afternoon and this evening, and passed the Women Jurors Bill, the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, the Finance Bill, the National Provident Fund Amendment Bill, the Native Purposes Bill, the Homewood Trust Bill, and the Local Legislation Bill.

Replying to Hon. J. K. Archer when ‘the Finance Bill was being discussed, the Leader of the Council (Hon. A. Wilson) said that the present time was not opportune for entering into a controversy as to whether doctors should be~satisfied with the fee laid down or not. Doctors were working hard at all hours of the day and night. The Government would see that in due time, if it remained in office, its election promises would be carried out.