Page 3498 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 15 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Why then did the ACT government previously make a commitment to diversity in community housing services? It made that commitment because it recognised, in the government’s 2003 paper, that it reflected the range of needs of individual households across the ACT community and that it reinforced one of the benefits of community housing: to provide for a wider range and choice of housing options reflecting differing needs and preferences of clients. Implied in that statement is a belief that some housing choice and opportunity should not be limited to those people who can afford to buy their own house. Of most concern is the fact that recent government decisions do not appear to address the problems faced by the sector.
It would seem that the ongoing viability of community housing is in doubt, as there are, in the context of current ACT funding models, too many community housing providers with too few houses. I can see two solutions to this problem: first, expand the number of houses so that housing providers can reach a sustainable level of tenancies; or, secondly, decrease the number of housing providers so that the remaining ones each have a sustainable level of tenancies—or perhaps a combination of both. Given the ACT government has an ongoing commitment to expand community housing, although not as much as 1,000 homes by 2005, a process that seeks to simply decrease the number of community housing providers appears short-sighted and unconstructive.
From SAAP to affordable housing: community housing fits in a spectrum. A Canberra-wide shortage of affordable housing for sale and private rent creates a greater demand for public and community housing. If there are other problems, there is greater demand for SAAP accommodation. The extent of the housing problem in Canberra can be seen in the SAAP bottleneck of recent years. The lack of access to affordable housing, lack of growth in ACT public housing and the corresponding slowdown in community housing sector expansion have created a bottleneck for people exiting SAAP services. The result is that the ACT has the longest average support periods in SAAP services in the country.
Some of the solutions to the affordability question might lie in expanding the top end of the community housing sector. In a housing market such as Canberra’s, where there are very few tenancies in community housing, where the public housing waiting lists are interminable, the criteria have been made very stringent and the vacancy rate for private rental housing is low and prices are high, there is a growing group of people trapped in housing stress.
Community Housing Canberra has briefed us about projects in and outside Australia that offer rental accommodation at less than market rent for people on low to moderate incomes. I note that CHC asked for a land tax waiver on a property that it manages for a private home owner who explicitly wanted to make that property available to a family in need. This owner was prepared to accept a lower rental return on that basis. CHC carries the vacancy risk and manages the property.
Here is a model where some land tax concession could encourage more private property owners to work with community housing providers. While there would be some loss of revenue through the tax concession, if pursued on a wider scale it might result in lower demand for social housing, better social and economic outcomes for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .