Page 930 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 17 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think this quite minuscule figure is important because, of approximately 34,000 households renting in Canberra, some 12,361, or about 35 per cent, are rented by the Housing Trust. Of this 12,361, nearly 80 per cent are rental rebate properties. We are therefore looking at the balance, which is about 2,470 dwellings, and even some of these, such as those without separate title, for example, are not currently eligible for purchase. Indeed, we could refer to the Grants Commission, which identified about 2,100 houses currently occupied by non-rebated tenants.
There is, however, I submit, no lack of demand from tenants to purchase their government houses. I support this by saying that during the election campaign when, as the Liberals' housing spokesman, I announced this policy of a five-year eligibility, our party headquarters had more phone calls on this issue than on any other policy announcement. I need not say that they were all positive phone calls. Since the election I have had quite regular representations from people wishing to purchase their government house.
Lest my word be doubted by the Government opposite as to the enthusiasm of people wanting to buy them, let me quote from the Government's own pre-1991 budget consultation report. After all, this Government is very keen on consulting with the community. They did consult on this issue. They received this answer and it was published in their consultative report:
Although the results of the survey of Housing Trust tenants are not yet available, there were many letters regarding the Housing Trust. Most believed that more of the inner north and south residences, which have higher land values, should be sold, and a higher proportion of tenants located in newer suburbs. There was also a belief that the ten year occupancy qualifying period before Trust houses can be sold to tenants is too long.
That is a quote from a pre-1991 budget consultation report of this Labor Government.
As I said before, the original 10 years was an arbitrary timespan which, I submit, has largely fulfilled its purpose in attracting purchasers who could meet this limit. I would remind members that up until June 1991 there were 179 applications under the 10-year tenancy rule, 135 properties meeting the criteria and only 24 offers of sale actually being made. The real figure to look at is the first one - the 179 applications received. One has to ask why, out of over 2,000 houses tenanted by people eligible to buy, the trust received only 179 expressions of interest up until June 1991? That was the initial period and opportunity when one would have expected that demand would be heaviest. I think the answer is reasonably simple, and that is that the 10-year tenancy period is too long an eligibility for most people.
Let me explain. We can reasonably assume that any purchaser needs to take out a loan to purchase a house. Most housing loans are for a minimum of 25 years. If you assume - I grant you that this is probably a liberal interpretation - retirement at 60 years of age, then 60 minus 25 is, of course, 35. So 35 years is the oldest age anyone can expect to enter into a housing loan and further expect to repay it during their working life. If they must occupy a trust house for 10 years before becoming eligible, then this restriction requires the tenant to be 25 years of age or less when they first move into the property. I do not believe that it comes as any surprise that there are so few people wanting to buy under the 10-year limit.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .