RENT RESTRICTIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20626, 26 July 1930, Page 15

RENT RESTRICTIONS.

HOUSE PASSES MEASURE.

UNEXPECTED ARGUMENT.

LABOUR CRITICISES MR. COATES

[BY TELEGRAPH. —-SPECIAL REPORTER.] WELLINGTON, Friday.

It was thought that a swift and smooth passago had been assured for the Kent Restriction Bill in tho House of Representatives to-day, but a sharp argument developed on tho second reading stage. Several members took exception to tho fact that tho Leader of tho Opposition, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, opened a debate on tho proposals in tho bill when it was claimed that an arrangement had been made between tho three parties that the bill should pass undiscussed.

It had been previously promised by tho Primo Minister, tho Hon. G. W. Forbes, that this afternoon would be devoted to private members' bills in consideration of tho Houso agreeing to continue the debate on the Unemployment Bill last Wednesday.

When tho House resumed this afternoon, Mr. Forbes asked that other measures should bo stood down in order that tho Rent Restriction Bill, which is being sponsored by the Minister of Labour, tho Hon. S. G. Smith, could be dealt with. The Prime Minister explained that it was essential that the bill should be passed by August 1. Labour Party's Promise. Tho Leader of tho Labour Party, Mr. IT. E. Holland, said he would agree to tho measuro being accorded preference, although there were others on the order paper beforo it. His party would bo willing to refrain from discussion. "In view of tho fact that tho Minister formally moved tho second reading without comment, .it is all very well moving it without an explanation, but I think wo are entitled to ask whether there is any real reason for a continuance of this class of legislation," said Air. Coates. Mr. Holland: I thought you agreed to let it go through without debate ? We would not otherwise havo agreed to private members' bills being waived for it.

Mr. Coates said he had not made any promise that the bill would bo allowed to proceed without discussion.

Mr. Smith: Has tho hon. member not read tho explanation attached to the bill?

Mr. Coates said he had read it, but at tho same time he desired to ask whether there was any reason for a continuanco of the law. Ho said that statements had been made in Auckland that there wero between 1000 and 2000 empty houses, and that persons with capital invested in property were willing to allow tenants to remain in houses at nominal rents merely in order to get some return. It was inevitable that capital would bo restricted in this class of investment as long as restricting legislation remained on the Statute Book. He believed there was some difficulty in regard to housing in Wellington.

Protest From Mr. Holland, Mr. Holland said lie understood the Primo Minister had suggested that the bill should bo put through without a debate. He had agreed to the introduction of the measure on tho understanding that there would be no discussion on it in order that it might bo put through expeditiously. He would not have favoured tho bill receiving preference over private members' bills had ho thought there was going to be a debate on it. Tho Act had been on the Statute Book for years. Everyone understood it and tho position could not be altered unless there was an alteration in tho provisions of tho bill. Mr. Coates had certainly 'allowed members to understand that ho would lob the bill go through without discussion.

Reform Members: Nothing of tho kind

Tho Minister said that the bill merely aimed at tho continuance of legislation passed by the Houso last session. From information carefully compiled by the officers of his department, it was clear that there was a real need for the maintainanco of legal protection for tenants. Tho greatest need apparently existed in Wellington, Christchurch and .Napier, and in saying this, he was backed up by tho figures supplied by his department. Applications made under the Act last year totalled 109 in Wellington, 22 in Christchurch and 8 in Napier. Mr. 11. S. S. Kyle (Reform —Riccarton) said that there was no need for tho legislation as far as Christchurch was con cerned. One had to pay 30s a week in Wellington for a room in which it was not possiblo to swing a cat, whereas it was possible to secure a five or sevenroomed houso in Christchurch for the same amount.

Protection For Tenants

Mr. R. McKeen (Labour— Wellington South) congratulated the Minister on bringing down tho measure. He said it was still necessary that tenants, especially in tho slum areas, should bo accorded protection against landlords. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour — Christchurch East) said the position in Christchurch had been misrepresented by Mr. Kyle, as it was still necessary for the restriction of rents in that city again this year. It was quite true that there were empty houses in Christchurch, but it was ridiculous to suggest that a seven-roomed houso could bo had for 30s. Ho would like to see tho Act mado a permanent measure, in order that they could do away with the necessity of passing legislation each year. The Minister said that the. bill did not affect houses erected after 1920. Investors were not prevented from putting capital into houses, as the number of people affected was so small. It was quito true that there were unoccupied houses in Christchurch, but these were of a typo which workers could not afford to rent. The tyll had been considered carefully by Cabinet and tho Government was not agreed that the time had arrived for a withdrawal of the legislation. Tho bill was accorded urgency, put through all stages and passed.