TENDERS CALLED IN 54 TOWNS

Southland Times, Issue 23379, 10 December 1937, Page 6

TENDERS CALLED IN 54 TOWNS

Building Of Houses For Renting ABILITY OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE “NOT POSSIBLE TO HAVE SATISFIED DEMAND” (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, December 9. The contention that private enterprise could never have attacked the housing problem so adequately or with such moderate charges to the people as the Government had done was made by the Minister of Finance (the Hon. W. Nash) when replying to Opposition criticism of the State housing scheme during the debate on the State Advances Corporation Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives tonight. Referring to charges that the rentals of State houses were higher than the average worker could pay, Mr Nash said that private enterprise inevitably took advantage of rising markets and there was an inevitable rise in rentals. The State houses today being let at 27/- a week would cost from 35/- to £2 a week if they were owned by private persons. There was a tremendous amount of credit coming to the Government for the work that had ben done. It was only last March that it had been possible to get going. Tenders had been called for in 54 towns and land had been purchased in 70 towns. There were 2734 persons actually engaged on the construction of houses for the Government and an equal number at least in providing the materials that were necessary.

“It would not have been possible for private enterprise to have satisfied the demand,” Mr Nash said. Replying to Opposition criticism that the Government was interfering with ordinary business activity, the Minister said that apparently the Opposition would not object to the Government entering the field of lending money, but the Government was not supposed to do the extra work of bringing the houses into being. Members of the Opposition could not reconcile these two attitudes. PERSONS LEAVING ROOMS Mr Nash said it was correct to state that one of the accentuating factors in the housing situation was that the Government had provided better incomes for the people. Many persons had come out of rooms and wanted to get into houses. That had accentuated the shortage. “The Opposition has indicted the Government for providing the things necessary for the people,’ Mr Nash continued. “It has said that the Government ought to leave that to private enterprise, but if private enterprise fails to provide houses ought we to allow the people to live in hovels and ought we to provide the facilities so that private enterprise can build houses at a profit, as the Opposition suggests?” Every effort would be made to secure tenants in their possession of State rental houses, Mr Nash continued. If through no fault of their own tenants were not in a position to pay their rent they would not be disturbed in their tenancy. Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Nat., Waitomo): And the taxpayer will pay.

Discussing special loans from the State Advances Corporation to persons wishing to build homes, Mr Nash said he did not wish to encourage the belief that the Government was going to provide the full amount of the money in every case. However, applicants of good character who had incomes sufficient to meet all charges would receive every consideration. The procedure laid down by the Government to be followed by the corporation was sufficiently elastic- to meet all cases. It was stipulated that both the applicant and the security would have to be worthy of credit. No fixed percentage would be charged, but the ■ houses erected would have to be within the ability of the applicants to pay. CHECK ON PRICES A strict check would be kept on the price of land and buildings and standard plans and specifications would be available for people wishing to build their own homes. It was also proposed to have an arrangement for hire payments to be made at the beginning of a period and then the mortgage would be adjusted so that the applicant would have an early equity in his own home. The payments would be arranged to include rates and insurance. No transfer of properties would be permitted and letting or sub-letting

would also be prohibited. “There has been some criticism of the State Advances Corporation,” said Mr Nash. “I agree that the corporation has been conservative in its outlook. It is being loosened up gradually, but if it is loosened up too much there is a danger that it may become unravelled. However, the fact remains that for the 12 months ended November 30, 1937, it provided loans for the erection of 1736 houses.

“The most controversial point of all concerns the payment of rates,” added Mr Nash. “Members of the Opposition should be the last people in the world to talk about rates, because for years when they were in office they paid nothing. We say that as long as the Government houses are occupied we will pay full rates. As far as the circumstances of the next 10 years are concerned, I cannot imagine many of those houses being empty.”

There was very little discussion during the committee stages and the Bill was read a third time and passed.