STATE HOUSES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27357, 5 April 1950, Page 6

STATE HOUSES

New Rental Basis OPPOSITION CRITICISM “A Political Move” “It does not suit some people to have the Government of the day legislating for the good of all,” stated Mr J. G. Henderson, chairman of the Otago-Southland Division of the National Party when commenting yesterday on the criticisms of the Government’s expressed intention to increase the rentals of any new State housing tenancies. “ The condemnation is actuated solely by party motives. “No doubt there are a number of people in the community who are prepared to acquiesce in a system which has in the past created a. privileged group of house renters—those who have been fortunate enough to secure a State house,” Mr Henderson said. “To prolong the position as it has existed since 1937 will not make it a just one,” he continued. “To carry it on indefinitely simply means that this privileged class will continue to enjoy cheap rentals at the expense of the general taxpayer. What the critics are advocating—and among these I must include the member for St. Kilda, Mr Jones—is that the worker shall be continually subject to taxation for the benefit of the few.” The Government had made it abundantly clear that no existing tenancies would be disturbed. At no stage had it committed a breach of faith with the public, for neither before nor during the election did the National Party say it would continue to rent further new State houses at subsidised rentals. “The late Minister of Finance, Mr Nash, prates about the mother with a large family not having much left out of the £ after paying increased rentals. Mothers with large families very rarely move about the country and I don’t see them being affected in any way,”' Mr Henderson said. “If their £ buys little today they have only the maladministration of tlje last Government to thank.” ’ It had been asserted,“too, he said, that the Government, by its action, was doing a disservice to returned servicemen. What of the returned men who borrowed money to finance their own homes? Were they, too, to be penalised by helping to subsidise the cheap rentals of those of their comrades (and the ordinary civilian) who had managed to obtain a State house? Furthermore, Mr Henderson asked, was it fair that people earning comparatively large salaries should be given the right to secure State homes when there were thousands of workers in the lower wage groups who could not afford to finance themselves out of earnings into a home of their own? Higher salaried people could, and should, accept their responsibility rather than look to the State for assistance.

Any person who was prepared to consider the whole question without bias would agree that the Government was adopting a sound and equitable policy, he added. If the Government was wrong it seemed strange that no comment was forthcoming from other than party adherents who had something to gain politically.