PLEA FOR LOCAL CONTROL

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

PLEA FOR LOCAL CONTROL

ERECTION OF HOUSES MR HAMILTON CRITICIZES PRESENT METHOD (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, December 9. The advantages of housing schemes carried out by local bodies were emphasized by the Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. Adam Hamilton) during the second reading debate on the State Advances Corporation Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives today. Local control and supervision, he said, were likely to give better results than a centralized scheme controlled by the State. “There are occupations the State should keep out of,” Mr Hamilton said, “and in my opinion housing is one of them.” The Minister of Finance (the Hon. W. Nash): The previous Government went in for housing. Mr Hamilton: And soon went out of it agaim It was debatable, said Mr Hamilton, whether it was advisable for the State to build shops as proposed in the Bill. It was wonderful how those tilings were gradually extended. “One of the difficulties that may arise in New Zealand will be from the building of too many houses in the cities,” Mr Hamilton continued. “We do not want all our people to come and live in the cities. One thing we want to avoid in this country is very large centres of population, like Sydney and Melbourne. We want large rural populations. “THE SOLE LANDLORD” “One of the functions of the State is to encourage labour and capital so that they find their way into useful and essential industries. In this Bill the State will be going to the extreme of becoming the sole landlord. It is quite wise for the State to set out to house the people properly, but I question if it can do it better than private enterprise, properly encouraged. The present method is driving capital and labour out of the building industry.” Many building tradesmen, said Mr Hamilton, were in other occupations today. They had gone to occupations which the State had not entered. Many small builders were not prepared to work for large contractors, but if private enterprise was encouraged there would be better results and better houses.

“The State has indulged in .unfair competition against the private builder,” Mr Hamilton continued. “It has cheaper money than anyone else. When it obtains money at one and a-half per cent, how can anyone else compete against it? There will be losses and the taxpayer will have to pay, but the private builder has no taxpayer to make up his losses. It would be interesting to know how the administrative charges are allocated.” The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Housing (Mr J. A. Lee): They are charged up to the houses. None will be charged to the taxpayer.

Rent restriction legislation, said Mr Hamilton, had intensified the housing problem. Mr Nash: It does not apply to new houses.

Mr Hamilton: It might easily be made to apply.