HOUSING AND COSTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23330, 23 October 1937, Page 12

HOUSING AND COSTS

It is not difficult to agree with' the Under-secretary for Housing that the provision of houses is a social service. It is a service of the first importance. The problem of acute shortage was in existence long before the Government took office, and its proposals to deal with it were awaited with sympathetic public interest. Criticism of the housing scheme which is now in progress has never been applied to the broad question of policy involved. It is probably true to say that the State's right to intervene to secure some amelioration of existing conditions has not been questioned,, except by those taking the narrow view that by so doing it might impinge upon the legitimate rights of private enterprise. The chief point of criticism—and it is a point with which Mr Lee, in his contribution to the Budget debate, again omitted to deal —is that the Government is failing completely to fulfil its undertaking to build cheap-rental houses. Houses are needed, badly needed.' But there would be a much greater demand for them, and a demand fully deserving of respect, if they were available at the rentals which the Government originally had in mind, than there can be at those which it now finds itself compelled to charge. That tenants will be found for the houses now being built need not be doubted. It is not to be imagined, however, that even Mr Lee would maintain with any confidence that the new tenant class will be broadly representative of the lowest paid workers whom the Government set out to provide with better accommodation. The demand for State houses will prove, where no proof is needed, that dwellings which' are attractive in design and rental are at a premium in every centre of population in the country. This will not necessarily imply approval of the revised scale of rentals. The man who wants a better home will have to pay a good deal more for it than he was led to anticipate, and if he cannot afford a higher standard of domestic comfort he will have to content himself with what he has while he thinks wistfully of what might have been. The Government, in spite of Mr Lee's protestations to the contrary, will have let him down. Mr Lee is simply nonsensical when he suggests that the housing shortage became apparent immediately after the Government "lifted the standard of living for an overwhelming majority of the people." The shortage was having embarrassing consequences when the Coalition Government introduced its subsidy scheme for the encouragement of private building and for the stimulation of employment during the depression. It was criticised by the party now in power for so doing. Private enterprise may not have been equal to the task of providing all the houses that were needed, but, during the slump period, there was certainly little to encourage investment in house property until the building subsidy became available. It is on the subject of costs, however, that Mr Lee appears to reveal his recognition of the weakness of his own case. First of all, he justifies rising costs on the score that they are more than compensated for by the training being given to young men as carpenters and builder*. Then he

sayg emphatically that rising cost* are not due to Labour's administration. And finally he decides that "it is Just as well to admit" that high costs form part of the Government's policy! Mr Lee can have it whichever way he pleases. The people, on the other hand, have little reason to be confused over the issue. They already have ample knowledge of the direction taken by costs since the Government set about raising living standards. And, unfortunately, the effect they have had on the Government's housing programme leaves no possible room for doubt as to where the responsibility for high rentals belongs.