Page 3573 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We would have put forward an amendment to that effect; but, when we sought information as to the number of people who might be affected by such an amendment, and in particular the consequences of that kind of amendment in terms of the revenue earning capability that is being put into place by this Bill, we could not get an explanation that we felt was sufficiently solid to base a decision upon. We were, and we remain, hesitant to propose an amendment to this Bill that will significantly affect the Government's ability to raise the tax, even though we believe that there are people who will be disadvantaged by it who perhaps ought not to be.
So, the Government may wish to take up that particular point once the Bill goes through, as I am sure it will; and have a look at it again from their stance of social justice - or from a position of what I call social equity, which is perhaps the same thing; it may be a little different.
Another thing concerns us about this Bill - and again we sought information and the information, such as was available, was freely given, I acknowledge. It has to do with the proposition that the Housing Trust and its tenants should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. The thing that concerns us about that is that, when the effects of this Bill flow through into rentals, the Housing Trust will get a windfall profit as a result of it, because it will adjust its rentals up to the new market norm.
It will not, of course, apply to all tenants, because some are subsidised. But I understand that about 30 per cent of Housing Trust tenants do pay full market rental for their homes. The rental on those properties will go up to the new market norm, whatever it is, the Housing Trust will receive the benefit of that, and it will result in a windfall profit to the Housing Trust.
One could argue, I suppose, that that is not necessarily a bad thing. But the other ramification of that is that, in our view, a special class of tenant is created. This is because there are people in Housing Trust properties on low income, who are subsidised and protected from the flow-on of this rental increase which will extend across the community; but similar people in a private rental situation, who have no such protection, will have to carry the increased rental. So, we are creating an inequity at the low end of the income spectrum. People in Housing Trust houses will be protected from the increase by the Housing Trust itself; people in private rental will not. So, we are creating a social inequity.
We could not determine, in the time available to us and on the information available to us, how that inequity could be addressed. I simply foreshadow that those are two things about the Bill that trouble us. In the time available, we
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .