Opposition Support Rural Housing Bill

Northern Advocate, 1 August 1940, Page 3

Opposition Support Rural Housing Bill

WELLINGTON. This Day

Opposition members last night congratulated the Government on the introduction of the Rural Housing Amendment Bill.

The Bill was given its third reading in the House of Representatives. The Minister for Housing (Mr. Armstrong) said there was nothing of a contentious nature in the measure, which only made certain necessary amendments to the existing law. The Minister explained at length provisions of the Bill, and. replying to a question asked by Mr. W. J. Poison (Opposition—Stratford) the previous evening as to the establishment of small villages for farm workers. said that these might be necessary and desirable.

It was entirely foreign to the provisions of the present Bill. which dealt only with the erection of dwellings on farms.

"I would like to point out." said the Minister, "that provision is already

i made under Counties and Housing j Ac's for local bodies to borrow money j from the State Advances Department i to build houses for their employees. "This would meet the suggestion by | Mr. Poison. "Local bodies could either sell these houses to the occupants or rent i them, and the State Advances Department would carry out all necessary administrative work." 10 Per Cent. Subsidy. Referring to the 10 per cent, subsidy provided for in the Bill in the ease of rural housing, the Minister said that provision had been made for it in the Estimates. If was an incentive for farmers to get on with the job of providing houses for their employees. The 10 per cent, subsidy, he said, would not apply in the case of farmers who could afford to finance the building of houses for their own workers, and lie did not think local bodies would advance money for this purpose to farmers who they knew could finance the building operations themselves. They would not be doing the right thing if they did. Where county councils would not assist farmers there was still provision under the existing law for the State Advances Department to lend money direct to a farmer for rural housing. Eut. in this case, the farmer would have to pay 4J per cent, against 31 per cent, under the Rural Housing Act.

Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Opposition— Waitoinoi: And the farmer would also lose the subsidy.

Mr. Armstrong: Yes, but he couldn't blame the Government for that. He would have to blame the stick-in-the-mud county council. Progress To Date. Summarising the progress made to date, the Minister said that G 9 county councils were in favour of the rural housing scheme and were proceeding with it. Mr. Poison said he thought the legislation, so far as it went, was good, out he thought it essential that the Bill should provide for village housing. Mr. Poison also said he could not see any authority in the Bill to prevent an applicant from getting a subsidy, but if there was some doubt it should be set out in the Bill explicitly. Mr. E. L. Cullen (Government — Hawke's Bay) and Mr. A, E. Jull (Opposition—Waipawa) both commended the Bill, tut the latter said he did not think it would iron out all the difficulties. The Minister for Finance (Mr Nash) stated that the Bill was a good one, and would provide amenities for rural workers which were urgently needed. After the Minister had replied, the Bill was read the second time. Without further discussion it was

put through the remaining stages