Page 1954 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR LAMONT: I believe, Madam Speaker, that for those three reasons this Bill is so flawed that it would be dangerous to have it passed by this Assembly. I think it would substantially undermine the ability of the Housing Trust to perform its task, and it would substantially disadvantage the vast majority of Housing Trust tenants; but that does not seem to be something that Mr Cornwell is all that worried about.
MR STEVENSON (11.50), by leave: If the points that Mr Lamont raises are valid they should be looked at; but they are only points of detail, not principle, that require amendment. The principle is that people should be encouraged to purchase properties if they can. We went through the relevant aspects of this during earlier debates when we said that if someone purchases a house the Housing Trust can buy another property so that it does not diminish the number of homes that are available. What does it do? It encourages people to accept greater responsibility for their home and their life. That is a benefit. That is a good principle. Mr Lamont is making rabbit ears with his hands or whatever. I think he is talking about money. That is a good point to consider. It is hard for a lot of people to get the money to buy a home. That initial step towards having their own home is difficult. Is this not what we are talking about here? Are we not talking about giving these people the opportunity to buy a home without having money problems for all their lives?
Mr Lamont: Under his Bill only 25 per cent of Housing Trust tenants would ever be able to purchase their houses.
MR STEVENSON: You said 15 earlier.
Mr Lamont: No, 25. I thought it was about 75 to 80.
MR STEVENSON: It is changing rapidly. The point is that these are details, and amendments are required. Why cannot a couple of amendments be introduced to correct the matter, particularly if we do not have to debate it finally tomorrow? Would that not be a benefit? The point I make is: Let us hold to the principle. The principle is just; the principle is beneficial for all concerned. There should be greater encouragement. We did look at the numbers of Housing Trust homes that have been purchased, and you cannot say that there has been encouragement. There must be discouragement somewhere. There are not enough. There are hardly any. What we need is encouragement. Let us provide the encouragement. If there were lots of people purchasing their homes we would not go down this track. It would be a waste of time. It is because they are not that they need encouragement. Let us hold to the principle. If the detail needs to be changed, do so; but do not destroy the principle or the opportunity to provide encouragement.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .