SCARCITY OF HOUSES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12771, 15 October 1919, Page 3

SCARCITY OF HOUSES.

DISCUSSED IN PARLIAMENT

SECOND READING OF HOUSING BILL.,

[Pbr Press Association.]

WELLINGTON, October 14In the House of Representatives this evening, Mr Massev moved the second reading of the Housing Bill He said that it mas intended to find a remedy for the scarcity of houses, more particularly in the Wellington district. This shortage mas largely due to shortage of labour and cost of material during the war. which practically put a stoj? to building operations. He regretted that labour still was,scarce and material still dear, but they had to go on all the sipne. Pari 1 of the Bill provided for the setting up of a Housing Board, for setting apart land for houses, and for financial arrangements in connection with the scheme. He proposed under this Bill to increase advances under the Workers’ Dwellings Act from £450 to £750. In the case of a wooden building, payments would extend over twenty-five and a half years, and in the case ot more substantial material thirtysix aud a half years. Part 11. of the Bill provided for special settlements for public servants. Part 111 made provision for loans to employers for the purpose of < reeling workers’ dwellings. Part IV. extended the provisions of the Act to harbour boards, and Part V. extended like privileges L- other local authorities. The Bill wan mainly machinery. It was an important Bill, and he hoped it would I>° passed into law during the next few days. Sir Josc2>h Ward said that this Question was intimately connected with the cost of Jiving, and he proposed to discuss it fully. He understood that the Government proposed to lend money to borrowers under this Bill at 5 per cent. He had made a calculation on this basis, and ho found that on a £750 investment it cost the borrower about 14s 8d per week, and on an £8,50 proposal sd. Thai, he thought, was too much. These houses should not cost people more than 10s 6d per week. He considered this could he dono because of the great profits made hv the Advances to Settlers Fund and the Advances to Workers Fund, the former of which made a net profit of £950 000 aud lent £21,000.000 without the slightest loss. The latter fund had man * a profit of £03,000 since, it had been in existence. He would not borrow in the ordinary way for the housing scheme, but would take it from the Post Office Savings Bank and lend it to borrowers, securing houses at 31 ner cent. There were over nineteen millions of the people’s investments in the Post Office Savings Bank, and this could be used to no better end than providing houses for the people. There was no doubt about the stability of this fund as a. source of supply of money, and monev could always be obtained. He believed six thousand workers* houses were recuired, and amongst workers he included Civil servants. clerks and all. kinds of people with small incomes. He favoured establishing a sinking fund of t per cent, which would extinguish loans on the following basis:—3 ner cent 66 years; 4 per cent, 56-57 vears; 5 per cent, 49-50 years. He thought that all these houses should, except in special cases, he of concrete, for which wo had all the material at hand. He thought there should be no such thing as profit-mak-ing out of this scheme, but it was important that it should be placed on a safe basis.

Mr Wilkinson said that, though the Bill was liberal, he thought it might have been more liberal. Bis objection to the Bill was that when the Government lent money to local bodies or employers them was nothing stated as to the rate of interest those local bodies or employers could charge. They should not be allowed to over-charge those taking up houses. Mr Ma ssey remarked that the scheme must not be run at a loss. Mr Wilkinson thought the country might have to face a loss, and no great harm would result if it did. Tie urged that practical mgn shonld be put on the Housing Board, and that the limit of income should be raised. The sum fixed in the Bill was altogether too small. He hoped that the Government would he prepared to accept reasonable amendments in committeeMr Massey said that the Government would welcome reasonable amendments.

Mr Parr said that employers and local bodies, as well as the Government, had a responsibility in this matter, and there ought to be some form of compulsion applied to them if they did not recognise that responsibility. The scheme probably would result in a loss, but that must he facedMr Hornsby said that there was a building ring in this country, whose aim was to block the Government and local bodies in this housing scheme, hut if the Government wont about it in a businesslike way, and imported material and used State sawmills, comfortable five or six-roomed houses could be built for £650 to £7OO. Tt bad been said that there would lie a financial loss on the scheme, but. he asked, would it be a loss? He thought it would bo the greatest- boon to the country if the be successful. Dr Newman said that houses under the Bill would be too dear. Unless cheap houses were provided for the people, many still would prefer to live in rooms, and the very terrible conditions prevailing would continue. Mr Hoi I rftid supported the central idea of the Bill, hut thought there was too much division of authority. it would he better if the Government retained power to build all houses. He, also objected to the power to sell houses after they were built. After midnight the discussion was continued by Messrs Ell, Luke. Smith fWaimarino). Tsitt. Field (Nelson), Anderson, "Wright, Witty, Glover, Semple and P. Fraser. The Bill uas read a second time.