Out After Exploiter

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 147, 6 June 1936, Page 7

Out After Exploiter

POLICY DEFENDED Measure Fair to Both Sides — EXCLUSION OF FLATS By Telegraph—Press Association. WELLINGTON, June 5. In moving the second reading of the Fair Bents Bill in the House of Bepresentatives to-day, the Hon. H. G. B. Mason said there was need of a measure of that sort and that the Government had been compelled to take action. It was felt that immediately wages rose there was an increase In rents, so that the tenant was really worse off than he was before. The Government had received a multitude of letters from all parts of the Dominion, which showed the need for the measure. Rents, added Mr Mason, were being increased all over the Dominion, and when the Government took the action, proposed it was under no delusion that it was a permanent solution of the housing problem. Methods of that sort could not be permanently satisfactory. The proper solution for the housing problem was a housing scheme which would do away with the need for restrictive legislation, but they could not in the meantime have tenants turned out of houses because they were unable to pay increased rents. It was found that the letting of rooms and parts of houses had become more oppressive than the rents of the houses themselves. He did not think it wise to interfere with the building of flats, which did minimise the housing shortage. If anything were done which would interfere with the building of blocks of flats the housing position might be accentuated. The Bill was not designed for that. The policy laid down in the Bill, said Mr Mason, did not interefere with new houses which were to be let in the future. The Government did not want to discourage building, but did want to prevent oppressive increases in rents where tenants were already in occupation. PREVENTION OF APPEAL. Mr Mason said that the Crown was bound by the Bill in that no Govern meet department would be in the position of treating tenants worse than any

other landlord. Were is not for the Bill the poorest section of the community could be thrown out of thenhomes on to the street without any protection whatever.

Referring to the provision that prevented appeal from a decision under the Bill, Mr Mason said that if appeal were allowed it would favour the man who could pay costs.

The Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes said that although the Bill was to expire next year it would be found necessary to extend it from limo to time, and it was only misleading the people to say that its term would be only one year. The people in the past had frequently put their saving into houses, but that was not so common now. A man who built a house, if it was a high-priced one, should not be regarded as the common enemy, and some protection should be afforded those who built Louses. The Bill completely lost sight of the in terest o fthe landlord, and it would undoubtedly discourage house-building by private entenprise. That would be left to the State, which would tlieu experience some of the difficulties of the private landlord. RENTS NOT AT PEAK. Although letters of complaint of the treatment of tenants had been received, the matters should be fully investigated before any action was taken. He quoted figures from the Year Book showing how rents had fallen from this peak in 1929 to bottom in 1934 and said that they were now showing a rising tendency but were still considerably below the rentals of 1929. Though the Minister said that the Government’s action had been taken because of neces sity, ho thought that a little leeway should be allowed to be made up first. Previously when wages were reduced rents were reduced, but now wages were going to be increased but rents could not be raised. He thought that from that point of view the Bill was not equitable. He asked why new flats were excluded when houses that had been converted into flats were left out. What was the difference, as long as they conformed with tho sanitary and other requirements” He thought that if one class was excluded so should the other class. He did not think that the clause fixing the rent would give a feeling of confidence to those who were to come under it. Many landlords were dependent for a livelihood upon the rents they received, and something should be done to protect them and to encourage private enterprise. TEMPORARY MEASURE. The Primo Minister, tho Rt. Hon M. J. Savage, said it would bo correct to say that tho legislation would be lor more than a year if tho Government did nothing to get to tho root of the trouble, but the Minister of Justice had explained that it was only a temporary measure to tide them over a difficult time. Would anyone im-gine a magistrate hearing a case and not giving any consideration to the property-owner! Ho would be guided in fixing a fair rent by the evidence that was submitted to him. He was asking for a chance to build houses, and Mr Forbes said that it could not be done; but Mr Forbes was judging the present Government by the last one. The Government would probably get into a few blind alleys, but it would ot stay there any longer than it was humanly possible to get out of the-m. A Magistrate hearing a case might make (mistakes, too. He would not be human if he did not. But his job was to hear evidence and give an equitable decision. Possibly what would appear to be injustices would be made on both sides, but it was not possible to clear up : n unholy mess in a few weeks. The. Government wanted places for people to make decent conditions for their families, and he had promised in the mime of Labour that it would be done. Timo alone would 101 l if ho was a humbug.

louses alone had not been singled out, As Mr Forbes bad suggested, Mr Sullivan was interesting himself in the rising prices of other things. The Government would assist the man who wa- wanting a home for himself, but would go after the exploiter, whether he was a property-owner, flourmiller or anybody else. The Government wanted to enable the tenant who was on relief to get on to work that would enable him to pay his rent or, better still, to own his own house. The Government had made a beginning to mild houses for tho people and was beginning to bring justice as between tenants nod owners; but if had the mess that had been left to clear up first. The Government had some life in it I and was going ahead. The Government was just human; it might make mistakes, but it would be big enough to correct its mistakes as they arose. POLICY OF INFLATION. Mr W. P. Endean (Nat., Parnell) said that the last Government had propounded the housing scheme after dealing with other problems that had to be dealt with, and he thought that ..he present Governmeut should give Ihe Opposition credit for that. He believed that the scheme would have solved the very acute housing problem that existed. He contended that tenants had received the benefit of past legislation The Government had embarked on a p .liry of inflation, and he thought that a rental should be based on the principle that the landlord would receive a rental having regard to the inflation that would exist in tho country. He contended that some of the decisions that would have to be made were too big for a magistrate, and he submitted that, there should be riglP of appeal. Mr F. Schramm (Govt., Auckland East.) said that tho Bill was far more just to landlords than much of the i legislation passed by the last Govern I ment. He c.ontei ded that it was tin necessary to extend the protection of the Bill beyond the £2lO sterling-a-year limit beeaus-i people who could pay rent above thn. figure did not need the pro lection ol legislation. Tho Government knew that (he Bill was only i palliative, but during the transition period from an extreme form of capitalism to a form of n. i.-ilisin it was necessary to bridge '11,,. ..iiif. rim Rill protected tenant land landlord against unfairness and proI vidcd iiiai-hiricrv for settling rent disputes oitlion' recourse f’o litigation.

Mr D. G. McMillan (Govt., Dunedin West) said that ren. restriction had its origin in national calamity and had always been necessary because of the failure to realise that housing was a national service. In some cases it was more of a national service than health. Only those people who were in daily touch with the most unfortunate section of the community realised the dire distress caused through the lack of housing. ; A MINISTER OWNS FLATS. Mr R. A. Wright (Indepdt., Wellington Suburbs) said that flats were usually built close to a city and contained all modern conveniences, and he agreed that tho Minister was wise to exempt modern blocks ot flats from the legislation. Ho contended that no-one would welcome the bill more heartily than the Public Trustee, who in the past had bad to make properties earn all he could tor beneficiaries, and now he would be able to tell them that he would have to conform with the law. Mr W. M. C. Denham (Govt., Invercargill) said that the Bill was designed to prevent exploitation, and he believed that n> the next year or two the Government would do all it could to .secure homes for the people. Mr W. J. Polson (Nat., ertratford) said that the Bill ignored the economic law ol supply and demand, and he was afraid the bill would spoil the tendency to saving and thrift. Housebuilders. who were doing a public service. would be discouraged, and the State would have to undertake the task. The policy of the Government would lead to the elimination of landlords, and the measure might be called an anti-landlord bill lie disagreed with the exclusion ot modern blocks of flats and said that many such flats were occupied by workers. He thought there was more extortion in that class of residence than in any other. “A iVliiiister of the Crown is, or was until recently, the owner of flats,” said Air Polson. “1 am not suggesting that there is anything improper in that; he is entitled to be the owner of flats and to rent flats; but 1 would like to have heard him defend, as one with experience, the action of the Government in taking flats out of this Bill.” Mr W. J. Lyon (Govt., W alternate) believed the Bill would protect the landlord in the long' run and would protect him from loss on properties which he owned. The Bill would be of material assistance to all the people of the Dominion.

GOOD IN PARTS. The Hon. J. G. Cobbe (Nat., Orona) said that the Bill was good in parts. He agreed that houses with rentals of over £2lO a year should be excluded, but he thought that the sum could verywell be halved. Mr 8. G. Holland (Nat., Christchurch North) said that the present housing position was largely the result of the war, as there were more profitable avenues for investment of money. Mr S. G. Smith (Nat., New Plymouth) said there were bad tenants as well as bad landlords, and the law should be fair to both parties. He be lieved that the Minister was genuinely wishing to help the people to se--are homes for themselves, but he was afraid that the Bill would not have that effect. Mr H. Atmore (Indepdt., Nelson; said the Bill would largely throw the onus of providing the 20,000 houses re quired on the Government, which must be prepared to carry it out. In reply, Mr Mason said that people who occupied flats usually paid highei rentals, and it was not thought desir able to interfere with them. To exclude the old type of house, which was converted into flats would not encourage the provision of new accommodation. Rent could be increased by mutual arrangement, but a tenant could go back on the arrangement. The second reading was carried, and the House rose at 10.30.