Page 369 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 2 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Bear in mind that the trust already has impediments to sale. They will not sell houses that were acquired or upgraded in the last five years; they will not sell if the area has been identified for development; they will not sell if there is no separate title; and they will not sell where they have low stock holdings. None of these things, however, has ever been enshrined in legislation. I believe that the new paragraph that I propose will allow that to happen. It will give the trust some control over the sale of properties.
The original term of 10 years, Madam Speaker, was quite arbitrary. It was agreed to by the trust simply because they were unable to judge demand after an eight-year moratorium on sales. There was never anything hard and fast in the 10-year rule. It was simply a cautious approach to see what the demand was. I believe that this has been acknowledged by the Government's decision to drop the 10-year requirement back to eight in last year's budget. However, if you are not anxious to sell Housing Trust stock, if you are concerned about the future of Housing Trust stock here in the ACT for all the reasons you have advanced, why did you drop the time period from 10 years back to eight? If you concede that there is a case to sell, you can just as easily drop it from eight years to five years via this Bill. If, on the other hand, there is no case to sell, you should leave it at 10 years. I cannot work out the logic. Why is it okay to sell after eight years subject to certain conditions, but it is not okay to sell after five years? It simply does not make sense. I hope that we get some sort of explanation from the Minister as to why that should be the case.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that the amendment that I have foreshadowed, plus the original amendment to the Housing Assistance Act, is simple justice. It gives people flexibility. It allows trust te0nants to purchase their own homes within certain restrictions; but, I repeat, it will extend only to 15 per cent of Housing Trust housing, which would amount to about 1,230 properties out of the housing stock empire of over 8,000 houses. Finally, I remind members once again that there is a case for encouraging these sales, because 66 per cent of Housing Trust stock is standard housing when only 11.4 per cent of current waiting list tenants need that type of accommodation. The sale of more properties will allow the trust to put together finance to enable them to build the type of accommodation that the balance of those on the waiting list obviously requires. I commend the Bill to the house.
MR LAMONT: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to speak further at the in-principle stage.
Leave granted.
MR LAMONT: Madam Speaker, I have just received on my table a copy of the amendment foreshadowed by Mr Cornwell, to which he addressed himself in his closing remarks. I think it should be brought to the attention of the Assembly that what is being proposed here is a bit of a three-card trick. The Bill provides for the sale of public housing for the purposes outlined in this Bill. At issue is whether provisions should be changed so that, instead of being able to buy a Housing Trust house after eight years of occupancy, a tenant will be able to buy such a property after having resided there for five years.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .