WORKERS’ DWELLINGS

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1756, 1 November 1905, Page 13

WORKERS’ DWELLINGS

BILL IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. READ A THIRD TIME., The .Workers’ Dwellings Bill was put through committee in the Legislative Council last Wednesday and passed. The only amendments made were those suggested by the Select Committee to which the bill was submitted. An attempt was made to find the true feeling of the Council on the question of the freehold and leasehold, but it failed because some of those who would have voted against the freehold proposals under ordinary conditions voted in favour of them to facilitate the passage of the bill. At clause 6 (application for workers’ dwelling) the Hon Mr George moved to Strike out the word freehold. He did so with a desire to obtain the opinion of the Council as to whether applicants should be able to purchase the freehold of a dwelling. The Hon Mr Rigg, while opposing the freehold .being open to sale, felt that to strike out the ability to purchase would jeopardise the chances of the bill passing this session. The Hon Air Pitt agreed with the contention that if the freehold clauses were struck out the bill would be lost this session. The Hon Mr Bolt said the Council should express its opinion. If the clauses were struck out the result would be a conference between the two Chambers, when some arrangement might be corn© to that would satisfy both Houses. The amendment was lost on the voices.

Clause 8 (rent fixed at 5 per cent, on the capital value, including 1 per cent, for depreciation, in addition to insuring the dwelling from fire) was amended by striking out the refei-ence to deterioration. The deletion does not, however, affect the rent, and there waa added a provision that the tenant must also pay the estimated amount of rates under the 1894 Rating Act. The Hon Air Jones moved to strike from the bill the mode of acquiring a dwelling by an insurance on his life. The Hon Mr Jenkinson argued that the object of life insurance should be to make some provision for his wife and family after his death, and it was wrong to offer inducements to a worker to insure his life for the purchase of a dwelling. The Hon Air Pitt pointed out that the provision had been considered carefully in the Lower House, and no objection was raised. The Hon Air Jenkinson replied that that argument carried no weight, since the Lower House had omitted to make provision in the mode for the payment of rent. The amendment was lost by 17 votes to 5. The Hon Air Jones then called for a division on the question of whether clause 10 (modes of acquiring the freehold) should stand in the hill. In his opinion the freehold provisions were a “snare and a delusion.” The clause was retained by 15 votes to 5. Clause 11 (mode of acquiring the freehold by endowment assurance) was amended by the insertion of a provision that the rent shall be 5 per cent. (There was no rent provided in the bill as it came from the House.) A new clause was added to provide that, with the consent of the Land Board, a lessee may at any time surrender his lease upon terms mutually agreed upon between them. Power was given the Minister to erect buildings for occupancy on a weekly tenancy at a rent not exceeding 5 per cent., the tenant to pay rates under the 1894 act. Every weekly tenant must be a worker and landless. Another new clause laid down that, notwithstanding anything in the Rating Act, 1894, the Land Board, in the case of weekly tenancies, under section 21 hereof, shall be liable for payment to * the local authority of rates in the same manner as if such Board or Atinister were an occupier within the meaning of the Rating Act, 1894, provided that the Board and Minister respectively shall not be liable for any greater amount than has been received as rate from each tenant. The bill was reported as amended, and read a third time on the voices.