Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 4253 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

commitments I give in this speech will satisfy your requirements and the same requirements as you have expressed in a letter to me. We will see how we go.

The new program reintroduced rental bonds. It fills a gap left by the withdrawal by the former government of the previous bond loans scheme that had operated for many years. Members will recall that the withdrawal of the previous bonds scheme was always opposed by members of this now government while in opposition as well by the previous select committee on public housing and Ms Tucker.

More recently the Affordable Housing Taskforce recommended that a rental loans scheme be re-established for low and medium-income private renters. Under the new scheme people on moderate incomes who are able to sustain a private tenancy can once again obtain government assistance to help them access rental housing in the private market.

Ms Tucker, as I said, proposed to amend the rental bonds program. That comes at a time we have been developing a range of proposals to increase housing affordability. It is this period which is marked by high rentals and relatively low vacancy rates.

One of the options we were considering was a modest increase in the qualifying income criteria under the rental bonds program. One aspect of Ms Tucker's proposed amendment addressed this issue but on a fairly substantial basis, we thought. As I say, I have had fruitful discussions with Ms Tucker about this aspect of her proposed amendment, and I am pleased to say that we have been able to reach an accommodation that would go a significant way towards meeting her objective of broadening the scope of the bonds program through an increase in the qualifying income criteria. We saw a table. I will use that and put that into words.

In the broad context of the housing affordability debate we have agreed that there would be value in increasing the income barrier for a household of two people to 110 per cent of ACT average weekly earnings, an increase of 10 per cent on the current barrier which reflects public housing income criteria. This would raise this barrier to around $930 a week. On top of this, 10 per cent would be added for each additional person in the household-for example, a household comprising a couple and two children would be subject to a new income barrier of about $1,116 a week. This would enable the household to rent a three-bedroom house on the private market, paying less than 30 per cent of their income on rent, assuming a rent level of about $300 per week. And that is the bad news; that is about what you would pay these days.

It is acknowledged that, under the current income criteria based on 60 per cent of ACT average weekly earnings, single people could be disadvantaged in attempting to access private rental housing unless they do so as part of a group. I might mention that groups are already well catered for under the program and guidelines.

In the spirit of Ms Tucker's proposed amendment, we have decided to raise the singles income barrier to 80 per cent of ACT average weekly earnings. This will see the income barrier rise from $507 to $676 a week. Again, this should enable a single person to rent a one-bedroom dwelling by paying 30 per cent or less of their income on rent.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .