MINISTER DENIES FAVOURITISM IN LETTING HOUSES

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 December 1947, Page 5

MINISTER DENIES FAVOURITISM IN LETTING HOUSES

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, Dec. 15. Allegations of. favouritism in the allocation of State rental tenancies were denied' today by the actingMinister in charge of State Advances (Mr Hackett). He was‘referring to the method adopted in allotting State tenancies, and said he was convinced that no favouritism had been shown to any person employed by the State Advances Corporation. The basis of all allegations was the housing hardship experienced by the applicants, he said; Preference is not given to any one group or class of the community, excepting tuberculosis cases which are reported on by the Health Department,” said Mr Hackett. “No persons are prejudiced simply, because they are employees of any particular Government department, or. because they work in the State Advances Corporation itself.” Because of recent allegations in a weekly paper it seemed prudent to say that it was the standing rule that an allocation, would not be made to a member of the’corporation’s staff without reference to head office, and in alf the cases mentioned in the article this was done, and allocations were made with full authority, he said. ■ “In certairi cases it had been alleged that officers of the corporation have been allocated State rental tenancies while they were members of the allocation committees, but this is not correct. In the cases in point, I might mention that an allocation committee was not formed in the town under question until October, 1946.” , . Since 1941, it had been the administrative practice to grant tenancies on a joint tenancy basis, and the majority of tenants installed since that year had since signed such an agreement, he continued. This applied not only in cases where a husband and wife were involved, but also to tenancies offered to two single persons, such as widowed- persons who arranged with a friend to live in them. Referring to repaifigand maintenance of houses administered by the State Advances Corporation, Mr Hackett said that the Corproation did no more than would be done by a prudqnt landlord, Mr Hackett added that every precaution was taken to ensure that statements about health and domestic problems were correct, but it stood to reason that any information must be treated as confidential. “If any person thinks that by the use of tactics or that by sending questionnaires they will extract that information from the corporation, then all I can say is that they are due for a rude awakening.”