‘No Dynamite At All’ in Tenancy Bill Provisions

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 July 1950, Page 7

‘No Dynamite At All’ in Tenancy Bill Provisions

WELLINGTON, July 27.—A1l sorts of statements had Been made by members of the Opposition when the Tenancy Amendment Bill was introduced, but he could find no “dynamite” in it at all, said the Minister of Labour (Mr W. Sullivan) in the House of Representatives this afternoon, when moving the second reading of the Bill. The Minister said that under the wise control of the Government and with an improvement in conditions it would be possible to modify the law even further. Mr Sullivan said it was impossible to remove all controls at present without creating hardship, but the Government would pursue, a policy of orderly and gradual easing of restrictions.

The Bill still provided a very large proportion of protection for tenants. The necessity for tenancy legislation would remain so long as the housing shortage existed. There was provision to prevent landlords taking over-hasty methods to recover possession of their property, but one of the most helpful clauses in the Bill was that which enabled an employer to provide accommodation for an employee and obtain possession when the employee left. “There can be no wholesale evictions under this Bill,” said Mr Sullivan. He repeated his invitation to Opposition members to supply him with details of eviction cases which they said had occurred this year. The Minister said he would have those cases investigated. New Tenancies The Minister said that one of the best clauses in the Bill was that embracing new tenancies, which were cleared of the former restrictions as to possession. Owners now would let their premises more readily, because they knew they could get possession if the tenant proved objectionable. Under that clause 789 new lettings and re-lettings had occurred between March 1, 195'0 and July 25, and 60 per cent, of that number were new lettings. In five city centres in the period from June 30 to July 25 there had been 99 new lettings and relettings, of which 54 were of new dwellings. “We should aim at getting rid of controls which are hindering our progress and get people back to negotiating their own business and carry on in a free and independent spirit,” said Mr Sullivan. Mr A. McLagan (Opposition, Riccarton) said he agreed that owners should have the right to regain possession of their properties as soon as possible without hardship being created. Labour had followed a certain method in relaxing certain restrictions, but this measure followed no set principle, and was a “hit or miss and blundering” one. In some instances it abolished controls needs of some tenants. The Bill gave certain landlords an unrestricted right to put their tenants out without regard to hardship. Landlords in certain cases need not require premises for their own occupation, and model tenants might be evicted without alternative accommodation. The Bill destroyed all security of tenure for some tenants.

Power To Evict

It might be argued that only a minority of the people were so affected, but that did not lessen the injustice. The Bill gave power to throw people out in the street, and the Attorney-General (Mr T. C. Webb) had looked appalled as the Minister of Labour gave his explana- * “This is an evictions Bill,” said Mr McLagan. Hotel rents were being decontrolled, and the only effect ot that would be to increase them. Mr McLagan said that persons could be evicted from camp sites without alternative accommodation being provided. He considered that the repeal of clauses affecting former servicemen would leave them without protection.. The Undet-Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr W. A. Sheat) said that Opposition members had given the impression that if the Bill had not been brought down evictions would never be possible. If eviction orders were pending, as some Opposition members, had said, then those orders were made under the law as laid down by the Labour Government.

Landlords’ Rights

Mr H. G. R. Mason (Opposition, Waitakere) said that the Bill increased the rights of landlords to eject tenants and presented a threat to the small businessman throughout New Zealand.

The Attorney-General said that the Government would give no undertaking that there would be no evictions, nor would the Government interfere with the law taking its course. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Fraser) did that once, and came very near to facing an action in the courts.

Mr M. Moohan (Opposition, Petone) said the Bill was a menace to thousands of tenants in the country, and a menace to immigrants and th young married couples who wanted homes. . _ Mr F. Hackett (Opposition, Grey Lynn) described the Bill as the.most hasty and ill-advised legislation introduced for years. Mr Hackett considered that tenancy agreements should be printed by the Government and included in the Bill as a schedule. ,He would not be surprised, he said, if the Opposition put forward 15 or 16 amendments to the Bill. The Minister Assistant to the Prime Minister (Mr W. H. Fortune) said the Government had every sympathy with the decent tenant, and the decent landlord, and the Bill would act in their favour. “No one has anything to fear except the bad tenant and the bad landlord,’! said Mr Fortune. The debate was interrupted at 10.30 p.m. The House will resume at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow, when an Imprest Supply Bill will be introduced.