HOMES FOR THE PEOPLEMINISTER ATTACKS LABOUR ATTITUDE ON HOUSING ISSUE

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 September 1950, Page 2

HOMES FOR THE PEOPLE — MINISTER ATTACKS LABOUR ATTITUDE ON HOUSING ISSUE

WELLINGTON, This Day (P.A.).— The wind was suddenly taken out of the Opposition sails in the House of Representatives this morning when, after the preliminary steps concerned with the •introduction of the Imprest Supply Bill were taken, the Minister of Labour,'Mr Sullivan, beat Mr F, Jones (Opposition, St Kilda) in catching Mr Speaker’s eye and took the lead by discussing the housing problems facing the Government today. The Minister discounted Opposition and outside criticism of the transit or temporary housing .scheme. He repeated that the scheme was not intended as a substitute for State houses, and after detailing the plans, facilities and amenities of the proposed units, said: “If the Opposition members don’t want these houses, then let them say so, and let them tell theii electors why they want to stop the provision of homes in their own areas.”

Urgent Need * Mr Sullivan said there was an urgent need to accommodate necessitous cases, involving some hundreds of our people who were living in very bad conditions. The units proposed under the present scheme were far better than anything that had yet been built for transit housing purposes, but the altitude of Opposition members in not wanting to understand • the scheme was far from helpful-. There would be fireproof partitions between the units, which would be made completely sound-proof withcut difficulty. The units would be new, fresh and clean and would be a palace in comparison with, some of the places people were living in at the moment, said the Minister. Mr Sullivan said the Government s policy was to do everything that was humanly possible to overcome the housing problem. It was said that there was a shortage of something like 40,000 houses, but he thought that the real shortage would be m the vicinity of 20,000 to 25,000 houses. A check was being made by the Minister in charge of State Advances to ascertain a reliable figure.

State House Tenants The Government believed that State houses were not intended for the people on the higher income level and the effect of the recent decision to place a limit on the income of State house tenants would be beneficial While there were 15,000 to 16,000 marriages per year in New Zealand, there were also house vacancies ansing through the deaths of owners and through people leaving the country, so that about 8000 houses per year would be needed to cater for newlymarried people. . Of the last group of immigrants to arrive two-thirds of the total were placed immediately in private accommodation. That was an indication of how the country could absorb laige numbers of new arrivals. There was a slum clearance problem to be tackled, he added, and it would be necessary to replace about 2000 houses yearly. By the time that problem was reached, would not the people in slums be happy to move into temporary homes? asked the Minister.

Appeal For Co-Operation Mr Sullivan said that for each of the next three years between 19,000 and 20,000 houses would have to be built to satisfy the demand. Mr Sullivan said it was fair and proper to ask for co-operation in the task of building the maximum number of houses, rather than criticism such as the Opposition had offered in recent weeks. One factor in the shortage was that an average of only 3.7 persons lived in each home today, whereas formerly it was nine or ten. People had rightly demanded a higher standard of accommodation, but that had aggravated the shortage. The costs of home-building had become far too high. In 1905 it cost £6OO to build a good home for a workingman; in 1925 it was £850; in 1935, £800; in 1945 £l6OO to £lBOO, and today the cost was £2OOO and more. One reason for high prices was the lack of sufficient competition. The Builder’s Plate “There has been too much, laid on the plate of the builders of this country” he said. “If we took a little off’ their plate, it would be a good thing for those building homes. I know that, from a practical point of view, that may be an honest confession of a builder’s sins. I don’t know.” _ , , ~ .. High costs were also due to the 40hour week, the high cost of imported materials, high taxation, the high standard of fittings now required and other factors. Mr F. Jones (Opposition, St Kilda)

introducing a new subject to the debate, said that the Minister in charge of Civil Aviation (Mr W. S. Goosman) had confessed that he knew little about civil aviation and that was evident from the Minister’s action in convincing the Government to sell the National Aviation Company. The report of a special committee which had been set up in connection with the proposed sale of the airways should have been made available to the Opposition as well as to the Government. Mr Goosman: What nonsense.

Mr Jones: The report should have been made available to every member of the House. Mr Goosman: I have it in my desk and you have no chance of seeing it, either. . . Mr Jones said that the Minister should have a hawker’s licence< for he had been hawking the N.A.C. in. New Zealand and Australia. There would probably be an endeavour to persuade shipping interests to buy shares in the company that bought the N.A.C. Mr W. Sullivan (Minister of Railways): What is wrong with that? Mr Jones: I don’t think railway or shipping companies should have interests in the air services. Mr Jones said that defence considerations alone made it desirable for the airways to remain as a State undertaking. Private and State-owned air services in other parts of the world were incurring. heavy losses, despite substantial subsidies in the way of mail payments. He thought the losses on the airways could be overcome. Mr P. Fraser: They are smaller this year. Government Policy

Mr J. R. Marshall (Govt. Mt Victoria) said the proposed sale of the N.A.C. was part of the Government’s policy. An Opposition member: The policy was to form the airways into a public corporation, with the Government retaining 51 per cent, of the capital. Mr Marshall: It may well be that, when there is a final agreement, that may happen. I don’t know. Opposition members: Oh! Mr Marshall: If we can sell the airways, lock, stock and barrel, that will be consistent with the policy on which this Government was elected. Mr Marshall, reverting to the suspensory loan discussion, said the cost of building houses in the rural areas would be put on the same basis as the cost of building in the nearest towns. The Government was about to embark on a campaign to implement the provisions of the Rural Housing Act. Mr P. G. Connolly (Oppn, Dunedin Central) said an officer had told the Public Accounts Committee that the cost of the temporary housing units would be £1250 each and they had an estimated life of 15 years. Mr Connolly suggested that, if they were not rented for more than £2 weekly, the Government would have to pay some sort of subsidy, but if those houses were to cost £1250, why did the Government not spend another £3OO to £4OO and get the people into decent houses with a bath in each? Air Services Mr Connolly, discussing the proposed sale of the N.A.C., reiterated the statement of Mr Fraser earlier in the session that the Labour Government, when returned to power would take the air services back without any goodwill payment. Mr W. H. Fortune (Minister in charge- of Police): The people will take a -dim view of that.

Mr Connolly said it was apparently the Government’s desire to sell ‘’■plum” sections of the service—the freight and. then the trunk routes—but what guarantee was thdre that if private enterprise took over the N.A.C. the needs of the people would be met. Private enterprise had only one end—more net profit. A Government voice: Service. Mr Fortune: No service, flo net profit. Mr Connolly said that commercial air services had a place in the strategic defence of the country, and it would not be wrong if their present losses were recouped from the defence vote. Mr Goosman said he was amazed at the statement that a future Labour Government would break a contract of the present Government. Breaking Contracts Mr Goosman said: “Will the Opposition say this Government would be justified in breaking the contract with the British Petroleum Company for five years’ supply without tenders?” The Minister also asked if Labour would break the contracts for the sale of State houses. He then flourished a number of reports which, he said, had been prepared by the Labour Government, but they had never been produced or printed. He said he had recommended to the Government that the Cook Strait freight service should belong to the railways, and, as tai as he was concerned, that service would stay with the railways, but tenders would be called for its oper-

ation on a charter basis. Mr Goosman, discussing housing, said that under the present method we were not catching up with the problems. There were a lot of people in desperate circumstances today. He took full responsibility for the temporary housing scheme, by which it would be possible to build two or three while one permanent house was being built. His instructions to the Housing Department were to concentrate on the scheme and in the plans prepared there was a great improvement on the previous transit housing. He was prepared to accept any plan at all for any further improvement, but his idea had been to standardise the houses and erect them more quickly.

When the day came the temporary houses could be pulled down, and, with the services already there, the land could be used for permanent houses. That was the day he wanted to see. He did not want temporary houses to become permanent, but for people to stay in them only until they could get a permanent house. He wondered whether it was advisable to keep • the rents low, because that might tend to keep the occupants in temporary houses longer than was necessary.

The 'luncheon adjournment was then taken.