Opposition urges government to withdraw Rent Reform Bill
Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat yesterday called on the government to withdraw the Rent Reform Bill because it caused confusion and offered the wrong solution to the problem. But, he told Parliament, the opposition would not be voting against the Bill in second reading but would move extensive amendments in the committee stage, which would take place in plenary session.
While the Bill aimed to eliminate a number of injustices, it created new ones with a total absence of the role of the state. It was right to relieve owners of their unjust burdens, but this should not be shifted to the tenants.
On the positive side, the Bill would alleviate pressure for new construction. It also sought to eliminate injustices to the owner's children who had to buy other property to live in while their family's property was tied up.
Dr Muscat said he was disappointed that such an inter-generational Bill lacked a social impact audit. Adequate data were not provided when the EU was promoting better regulation.
The Bill did not take into consideration the international crisis and the revision of utility tariffs which could negatively affect, in the near and long terms, families who would have less disposable income. The government lacked social conscience, with needy families having received the utility bills but not the promised relief vouchers. It also lacked tangible social commitment.
International events had shown that full liberalisation could lead to a disaster with the government, through taxpayers' money, having to rectify the situation. The opposition agreed with liberalisation, but this had to be responsible because it carried a price tag which should be shouldered neither by the financially weak nor by the owners.
The state had to intervene with responsibility with regard to the social aspect in housing. This was totally lacking.
The government should assist those who could not meet the new rent obligations and should declare how the benefit schemes would be operated and to what extent. How many new building units would be built for social housing purposes? Timeframes should be drawn up and budgets for such purposes approved. Dr Muscat declared that this could have formed part of a social audit, and insisted on a fair deal for both owners and tenants.
The government should withdraw the Bill because it created confusion. Experts were already giving various interpretations to the clauses of the Bill. But, he said, that the government would do nothing of the sort and therefore the Opposition would not be voting against the Bill in second reading. It would, however, be proposing a number of amendments in committee stage.
Dr Muscat said that the government had accepted the opposition's request to hold the committee stage in plenary session of the House because it felt that the Bill was not clear.
The opposition wanted an unequivocal Bill that was transparent and open to scrutiny. The liberalised market in 1995 had not brought the desired results because it lacked certainty. There were no fixed timeframes for the Rent Regulation Board to decide on issues submitted to it. The present board should be reformed and given adequate resources to deal with an increased caseload.
The Bill increased powers but failed to increase scrutiny and checks and balances. New mechanisms would have to include representatives of all stakeholders. An adequate period of adjustment had to be given in order to avoid new social problems. This period of time also had to serve for the state to prepare itself for a changed situation, planning on building new housing units to rent out as social housing and protecting the weak through different types of assistance.
Dr Muscat declared that it was unacceptable that patients who were institutionalised for more than a year should lose the right to their leases at a time when they were most vulnerable. The opposition was not convinced on how the Bill was to cater for the tenants' children and siblings living in the same household.
Turning to requisitioned property occupied by political parties, Dr Muscat said these should be treated as other clubs. It was high time for the government to legislate on political party financing. Requisition orders were a thing of the past, he said.
In committee stage the opposition would insist on the protection of minority groups, including cohabiting couples. This promise had been made by the PN way back in 1998. Such a Bill could not exclude this type of families.
The state needed to show social commitment, he said, adding that he had been informed that the government had recently stopped a scheme whereby people living on social assistance could buy the government property they were living in.
Concluding, Dr Muscat said the state should not abdicate its social responsibilities and should not create any new injustices.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
25 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Erminia Parfitt
Jan 16th 2009, 13:40
May I remind Dr. Muscat that it is not the citizens' duty to subsidise government through low rents from private property - it is government's duty to apply an equitable social conscience across the board..what about owners who have been deprived of a reasonable income from their properties and have had to suffer hardships themselves, paying high rents / mortgages instead of being able to live in their own houses or collect market value rents from their own property? MLP seems to assume that all property owners are well off!
Joe Galea
Jan 16th 2009, 09:03
The most important thing in life for the PN brainwashed apologists is not that justice is done equally with everyone, but to ridicule and criticise and abort anything the PL says especially the PL leader. Grow up guys because due to such a mentality we are in a bad situation, run by a directionless government without any social conscience.
JM please keep on fighting and speaking up for the just. We need accountability from the beginning and not patchy politics like that of Gonzi.
P.Schembri
Jan 15th 2009, 20:47
@all pn bloggers. In your haste to ridicule the Leader of the Opposition, you really go to real depths. Haven't you heard of the expression look before you leap? So why not read or listen carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition is saying that come here and comment. What Joseph Muscat is saying is that it's no use to do justice while at the same time creating another injustice. Is that so bad that you PN apologists don't accept anything the PL says. You're really politically blind and brainwashed.
P Aquilina
Jan 15th 2009, 20:35
@ C Attard
M'hemmx fiex titfixkel......Joseph irid li ir-riforma ma ssehx ghalissa...
Joseph irid li r-riforma ssir xi darba ohra.....xi darba....!
Ilna snin shah nistennew li ssir din ir-riforma u issa, li se ssir, Joseph irid li l-Gvern jirtira kollox!
C Attard
Jan 15th 2009, 20:08
Have you read the article or not?
The only thing Joseph Muscat wants is that things would be done properly from the very beginning. If the 1995 changes were made good from the very beginning, we wouln't be in such fuss today. Now the PN apologists are feeling angry at the Opposition in doing its job for the sake of things being done perfectly! I think you remember the IT courses case in MCAST when things weren't done good from the beginnig...
And finally two question!
What is the Government waiting for to accept the fact that even in Malta exists gay couples, unmarried couples and siblings who also live together??
Why is Dr.Gonzi considering political clubs above the other clubs in this issue??
c.camilleri
Jan 15th 2009, 17:39
So the landlords are being asked by Joseph to wait more after so many yrs of being deprived of the properties or reasonable rents?
S Cassar
Jan 15th 2009, 17:11
WHAT I FIND ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE IS THAT IN THE BEGINNING OF HIS SPEECH IN PARLIAMENT YESTERDAY, JOSEPH FIRST SAID THAT HE WILL VOTE IN FAVOUR OF THE BILL .............
AND THEN IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS SPEECH HE URGED GOVERNMENT TO WITHDRAW IT!
SEEMS THAT THE PRIME MINISTER'S DECISION TO NOMINATE FORMER LABOUR DEPUTY LEADER GEORGE ABELA AS PRESIDENT HAS CAUGHT JOSEPH BY SURPRISE AND JOSEPH HAS NOW LOST HIS COOL
ALSO, JOSEPH'S STAND THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD WITHDRAW THIS BILL REMINDS ME OF WHEN AFTER YEARS DISCUSSING EU MEMBERSHIP A NEW LABOUR GOVERNMENT PUT MALTA'S APPLICATION IN A DEEP FREEZE
JOSEPH NOW WANTS TO PUT RENT REFORM IN A DEEP DEEP FREEZE!
WHAT A PITY! AND NOW WITH GEORGE ABELA OUT OF THE WAY THERE IS LITTLE HOPE THAT LABOUR WILL EVER CHANGE FOR THE BETTER!
lgalea
Jan 15th 2009, 16:37
m farrugia
If Gonzipn found enough money to award himself €290 per week INCREASE in his salaryu and those of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, there should be no problem in finduing money for the EneMalta salaries.
m farrugia
Jan 15th 2009, 15:52
Withdrawal seems to be Joseph's latest buzzword. This is the big problem with PL. They always seem to defend all those who make a living out of taxpayer's money. He recently declared that the unions' directive not to pay Electricity bills was reasonable. What would he say if he was an Enemalta employee, and next month he did not receive his monthly salary, will he ask the govt, or better still the taxpayer, to make good for his salary?
And now, PL are asking the govt , i.e.the taxpayer, to assist all those, who according to the PL will not be able to pay the euro185 yearly rent.
How can PL expect to attract new voters, with this type of attitude. The Maltese electorate has matured a lot and a great part now understand that nothing is there for free and the less burdens on taxpayers the better
Dear Joseph, I'm sure that the hardworking Maltese, prefer a 'gvern bla kuxjenza socjali' instead of a bunch of Mintoffjani wanting to make a living out of our taxes. And the sooner the PL media stops brainwashing Labour supporters that the govt i.e. the taxpayer should always carry the burden the better.
lgalea
Jan 15th 2009, 15:01
S Cassar et al
Why don't you first listen to the reasons before putting pen to paper simply to criticize Joseph and the PL?
Steve Sant Fournier
Jan 15th 2009, 14:48
So you want a clear unequivocal Bill that was transparent and open to scrutiny. Give a deadline, and declare nul the 1939 Rent Laws. Would that be a solution. 70 years of subsidizing the Government is long enough. Too long.
P.Schembri
Jan 15th 2009, 14:47
Looks like the government is inventing a new game. He's proposing one thing, and in Parliament shows up another. For all those who have forgotten (on purpose??) PL already issued a white paper on rent proposals. But it seems that the Government has changed the plot. Joseph Muscat is tellling him to withdraw the amendments, so that they'll be further looked into. Remember the water and electricity tariffs. Not all data was given. Something's fishy here too.
a attard
Jan 15th 2009, 14:23
Even the present reform law as proposed still hold great injustices against the owners of these properties.....let alone not doing anything about it. Property owners getting pittance from these old rents can be considered as the biggest charity contributors in society ........
S Cassar
Jan 15th 2009, 13:04
GOVERNMENT HAS PUT FORWARD ITS PROPOSAL MONTHS AGO
VARIOUS ORGANISATIONS REACTED AND GAVE THEIR PROPOSALS
EVERYONE THAT IS, EXCLUDING JOSEPH AND HIS PARTY
PEOPLE WELCOMED THIS PROPOSED REFORM WHICH IS CRUCIAL
U ISSA F'DAQQA WAHDA JIGI JOSEPH U JGHID BIEX INWAQQFU KOLLOX
THIS IS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE!
Joseph Vella
Jan 15th 2009, 12:49
@ J Farrugia. Just check for yourself how did the PN (yes PN, not PL) got it's Santa Lucija club. The PN wanted to exclude "social clubs" from this reform, it was Labour who wanted to include them.
EDWIN DE MARCO
Jan 15th 2009, 12:49
I fully agree with Dr. J. Muscat's views but I sincerely hope he has more success with this rent thing than with he had the W&E exaggerated tariffs...
mario mifsud
Jan 15th 2009, 12:34
See that is the problem ..everything is policised
D Vella
Jan 15th 2009, 12:30
Has the Opposition even bothered to offer anything tangible by way of a CONSTRUCTIVE contribution . . . ??
J Busuttil
Jan 15th 2009, 11:49
The opposition party is always telling Government to WITHDRAW from doing things. \\\\\\i call on the PL and Opposition leader to be constructive and propose amendments to the bill if it deems to do this. Come on grow up and be a mature opposition and not always an opposition of NO.
James Dimech
Jan 15th 2009, 11:46
Obviously Joseph wants to retain his votes from the classic bunch of Labourite "familji" who refuse to take up work and want to live off other people. Joseph wants to retain his votes by keeping them occupy your valuable property.
And here's another one:
"The government should assist those who could not meet the new rent obligations and should declare how the benefit schemes would be operated and to what extent"
In the meantime you hard working people and couples who took responsibilty for yourselves and took loans and pay taxes...keep on working and leave it to Joseph
D.Micallef
Jan 15th 2009, 11:06
@ J. Farrugia
It's the PL that is insisting that political clubs should not be excempted from the proposed new regulations!
V Fenech
Jan 15th 2009, 10:56
The Opposition is dealing with things according to what is right or wrong!
Joseph Muscat is straighforward when coming to the political clubs. Gonzi does not want to treat them as ordinary clubs! Shame!
As usual the Rent Reform Bill has been transformed in an accounting exercise without any social justice. Something usual from GonziPN.
O Longo
Jan 15th 2009, 10:55
no more delays PLEASE
J Farrugia
Jan 15th 2009, 10:28
The Opposition has much to loose from this bill. Their clubs have been stolen from the common people. shame on the MLP and shame on Joseph for requesting the government to stop this bill.
Mario Mifsud
Jan 15th 2009, 10:03
I hope common sense prevails
The government should be lauded for moving in the right direction with this bill but should not stop from taking the necessary steps to improve the bill before it is ratified.
I repeat I hope COMMON SENSE prevails, or the "political maturity" mentioned in these last few days would only be a farce.