Wednesday 18 September 2013


Hansard of the Legislative Council





Mr FINCH (Rosevears) - Mr President, I am also curious about the 10 pages of amendments and others from members. I can only assume that good points were made on the floor in the other place and that those points of debate resonated with the government and with advisers, to the extent that they wanted to make a better bill of the legislation we are dealing with. It is never too late to make a bill a better bill and I look forward to contributing to that.


I have not had a chance to marry up my own concerns about the clauses in the bill with what is suggested here and with what other members are suggesting, so I will watch that closely through the briefing. If my memory serves me correctly, leader, you are providing a briefing, if that is the will of the House,


Mr Farrell - If that is the will of the House.


Mr FINCH - It is the will of this particular member that we do that. It seems logical to me that if resources to help people in need are stretched, those limited resources should go to those who are most in need. That is the intention of this bill, and the minister's letter to us members said that the purpose of the social housing aspects of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Bill is to ensure that social housing, which is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, is available to those household which need it most. However, I am not entirely convinced that a household income threshold of $66 000 over 12 months, and $35 000 worth of assets, as a trigger for careful assessment of a tenant's need for housing assistance, is necessarily the best way to go. I will bring that up in the committee stage or during our briefing, but I support the idea that taxpayer funded help should go to those in greatest need. I support the bill.