DEAR HOUSES

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 26 July 1924, Page 5

DEAR HOUSES

WHAT IS THE CAUSE? BOARD OF TRADE CRITICISED. (By Telegraph—Special to Star.) WELLINGTON, July 25. - When the Rent Restriction Bill was discussed in the House to-day, Mr Wilford traced the high rents to the operations of a timber ring. He declared that there would be no reduction in rents until timber was cheapened. ‘‘The timber milling,” he said, “is the most solid combine in this country outside petrol and banking.” He blamed the Board of Trade for creating a timber combine by circularising millers with regulations forcing them to come together for self-defence. The millers became so well organised that they even succeeded in getting the board to authorise increased prices.' The great expense of house building would not be lessened until this combine was dealt with by a body which understood the position. It was hopeless to expect the Board of Trade to deal with, such able men as the sawmillers, and some other authority set up by the Government would have to deal with them, because the officers of the Board of Trade did not possess the necessary knowledge. The sawmillers were defended by Mr Field (Otaki), who said it was untrue to suggest that the high cost of dwellings was due to the admittedly high price of timber, because it comprised only one-sixth of the total cost of a house. He knew of many sawmillers who were milling in difficult country, and could not carry on except at the present prices. Any reduction would stop operations, and valuable timber would be burned. The Board of Trade needed strengthening and made more active. He had made suggestions on these lines, but they had not borne fruit. The board should pay far more attention, not only to the price of timber, but practically all commodities used by the people. He understood that it "was impossible to do anything in regard to the terrifically high price pf tobacco, and there were other things dearer than they should be to-day. The Board of Trade should be strengthened by commercial men who understood the ramifications of business.

Some light on building profits was thrown by Mr Corrigan (Patea) when he instanced what had taken place in regard to 25 houses built in Auckland by a. company in which he was interested. Of the 25 houses in question only one was occupied by the purchaser, the 24 others being bought from the company for speculative purposes. The price charged by the company was £670, and these dwellings were resold lit £llOO and some at £1250. A member: W here were these houses ? Mr Corrigan: They were in Grey Lynn, and between Epsom and Onehunga. That was a sample of the speculation going on. { Mr Fraser: Did the building company make a success of the business? Mr Corrigan said the company made a profit in selling at £670. A number of jobs were sub-eontracted. The actual cost of the timber used in each house of a total value of £670 was £l7O for heart rimu and totara blocks. His company had long ago ceased to build houses for letting purposes, as it was not a paying proposition. (by TELEGRAPH -TOESS ASSOCIATION.! WELLINGTON, July 25. During the, debate on the Rent Re> striction Bill, Mr. Wilford said the Bill was extremely urgent, and if it were not passed thejre would be thousands of evictions* in Wellington. There was, however, still a defect in the Bill, namely, that it failed to provide against an owner who declared to a magistrate that he required his house for his own use, and then, so soon as the court made an order, that owner immediately sold the house or let it to someone else at a higher rent. Cases of this kind were difficult to check,' but it was a point which required some safeguard. Mr. Fraser said it was regrettable that there was a crying need for the continuation of the present legislation. If it were allowed to- lapse hundreds of people in Wellington alone would immediately be put out of their houses.

The Hon. C. J. Parr said a difficulty was to see what could he done, if anything should be done for tenants who voluntarily gave up their houses at the request of landlords. An objection to the Bill, of course, was that it and similar restrictive measures had stopped speculative building. At the present time about five thousand-year-ly were required for workers, and if the Government was to be the solo supplier of homes it would be necessary to borrow £5,000,000 from London annually for houses alone. The Minister, replying, said a good deal or the trouble to-day was that people desired houses built on too expensive a. scale. No other country had done so much as New Zealand duiiiig tlie past five years to provide workers with homes. Under present conditions there was no inducement tor a private capitalist- to build houses for renting purposes. People did not want to live in “workers’ settlements’ ; they wished to build according to thcii own lancies. Regardino* the enforcement of ejections, the only way was for -a tenant to let the owner take primitive measures, and then a tenant could go to the department, which could take such action as it deemed advisable.

The Bill was read a second time. Mr. A. L Monteith (Wellington East) urged that provision be made to piotect a tenant with small means and a large family by requiring that an. owner who secured the ejectment of the tenant because he required the house for “Ins own use/’ should reside therein or be proceeded against by the department. At present people suffering under such conditions frequently found that before they had means to take action themselves thev stopped by the effluxion of time n u, l? ert °ok to consult the Leader of the Upper House with a y, ieu ' devising means to deal with the difficulties mentioned. The Bill was reported without paSed nient ’ 10ad a fchird thne «»<*