POWERS OF LANDLORDS

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1034, 26 July 1930, Page 10

POWERS OF LANDLORDS

HOUSE PASSES RENT BILL REFORM ATTACKS MEASURE THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Friday. The arrangements evidently made by the representatives of the several parties in the House of Representatives fell down this afternoon when the X,eader of the Opposition, the Rt. Hon. .J. G. Coates, unexpectedly voiced an objection to the Rent Restriction Amendment 33111 introduced by the Minister of Labour, tho Hon. S. G. Smith.

By the decision of the House, on tho request of the Prime Minister, although today was set down for private members’ bills, the Rent Bill was dealt with first, it being assumed that there would be no discussion. The Bill had to go through tho stages early for the present Act expires by August >. Mr. Coates rose and said the J-louse was entitled to know the reason for the continuance of the legislation. The Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. H. E. Holland, objected, claiming that Mr. Coates had promised' to let the Bill so through without debate. Mr. Coates said ho could not help what tho Leader of the Labour Party thought. He had not promised to let the Bill go through without discussion. The Minister of Labour: Has tho Honourable Member not read tho Explanation attached to tho Bill? Mr. Coates said he had, but he de-

sired at the same time to ask the reason for the continuance of the Bill. In Auckland statements had been made that between 1,000 and 2,000 houses were empty and those with money invested in property were whiling to let tho people remain in their homes at a nominal rent for the sake of ensuring some return. So long as restricting legislation remained on the Statute Book capital in property investment would be hindered. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Reform —Gis-

borne) interrupted Mr. Coates and said , he should have said that before. Ho * should have said he was going to oppose the Bill. Mr. Coates: Nonsense. I never made any promise that I would not discuss the Bill. Mr. Holland said ho would not liavo agreed to the Bill being given precedence over private members’ Bills if he had thought there was going to be a debate over it. The afternoon was given over to private members’ Bills. Mr. Smith said the Bill aimed at continuing the legislation of last session. He had ascertained from a careful inquiry by officers of his department that there w*s a real need for the maintenance of the legal protection of tenants. The greatest need existed in Wellington, Christchurch and Napier. Under the Act last year 109 applications had been made in Wellington, 22 in Christchurch and eight in Napier. Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Reform—Riccarton) claimed that there was no need for legislation in Christchurch. There were plenty of empty houses and one could secure a five or seven-roomed house in Christchurch for the cost of a room in Wellington, say 25s to 30s a week.

Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour — Christchurch East) refuted Mr. Kyle’s remarks, saying that the position in Christchurch had been misrepresented and that the restriction of legislation was still necessary. It was true there were empty houses in Christchurch, but Mr. Kyle would not have knowledge of the position in the centre of the city as he represented an outside constituency. Mr. Armstrong hoped the Act would be made permanent to save annual discussion on the question. Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour—Auckland Central) said the question was one concerning people living in the centre of tho city who could not afford the high rents of the suburbs. These people had to be protected from exploitation by landlords. The Minister said it was true that houses were empty in Christchurch, bi t they were not of the type to suit workers in the way of rent. Regarding the permanency of the Bill, the Government was not of the opinion that tho time had yet arrived for making such legislation permanent. The Bill was Accorded urgency and passed through all stages in the Lower House.