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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Wednesday, 30 June 2004) . . Page.. 3014 ..

the lower forty percent income bracket who pay more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs, whether renting or buying, are said to be in ‘housing stress’.

This definition of affordable or unaffordable housing is in wide use. It was used, for instance, by the ACT Affordable Housing Taskforce in 2002. This bill would essentially introduce two mechanisms to ensure an increase in the stock of public or affordable housing. First, where the government grants a new lease with the purpose of a major unit development, this bill would establish that the lease may be granted only if a condition is built into the lease requiring 10 per cent of the development, when completed, to be either handed over to the Commissioner for Housing for public housing or to be otherwise used, and continue to be used, for affordable housing. This is requiring the government to do what it ought to do—that is, to use the fact that we have a leasehold system, where nominally there is an element of interest in the common good directing what happens on the ACT’s land, to address this crisis in housing.

The second mechanism in the bill would affect the approval of a development application for a major unit development. This is the case where someone already holds a lease and wants to redevelop the area for residential units. Again, this would apply only to major developments, which the bill defines as 20 units or more, or as otherwise defined in regulations. In this situation, the bill would set an additional condition on the approval. The condition would be that the developer either hands over 10 per cent of the development when completed to the Commissioner for Housing for public housing or that that percentage is otherwise used, and continues to be used, for affordable housing—or that the developer pays an affordable housing contribution. The contribution would be determined at a reasonable rate, with reference to several matters set out in the bill. These are the extent of the need for affordable housing in the area; the scale of the development; whether the proposed development is likely to reduce the availability of affordable housing; and any dedication or contribution previously made by the applicant under the section or section 161—granting of leases—in relation to the area.

This condition of approval would not apply if the relevant lease were originally made subject to affordable housing requirements. The choice of contributing either affordable housing or a monetary affordable housing contribution is modelled on the New South Wales developer contribution system—for example, SEPP 70, which is described in the Affordable Housing Taskforce report. I refer members particularly to Background Paper No 3, report to the ACT Affordable Housing Taskforce, titled “The role of land and planning mechanisms in providing affordable housing”. These requirements will apply only to applications received after the commencement date of the bill; they will not apply to applications made but not yet approved at that point.

Proposed new clause 245AB would require the territory to apply any affordable housing contribution under 245AA to the purpose of providing affordable housing within a reasonable time after the contribution is made. Also, the Commissioner for Housing must use the units transferred in the exercise of the commissioner’s functions in relation to programs and arrangements for providing affordable housing. This task is consistent with sections 8 and 9 of the Housing Assistance Act 1987 where the functions and powers of the commissioner are set out—that is, these new requirements would fit into the powers and functions that the Commissioner for Housing already has. That is how the bill will work.

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