Page 3191 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 20 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
On the basis that the community housing provider retains the dwellings once constructed, it will be up to the individual provider to select tenants based on their own eligibility criteria. This generally includes an income threshold test which is consistent with income quintiles 1 and 2 of the ACT Housing Strategy.
This is basically what the Suburban Land Agency said at an information session on affordable housing lots held earlier this month. They stated, in response to a question from the floor, that “there will be no minimum holding times on the community housing dwellings once built”.
Not-for-profit community housing providers are, by definition, not for profit. However, they do have to make a surplus to be economically viable, and they also have to conduct some surplus-making activities in order to further their charitable activities, that is, providing housing for people in need or who otherwise are not catered for in the private market.
We should support the growth of this sector, even when they are providing housing for a range of people across a broad range of needs and income bands, because by doing so we are reducing reliance on the private sector to provide it. Decreasing reliance on speculative investment is consistent with the adage “housing for people, not profit”.
Sadly, the responses to my questions in estimates, as well as the focus and structure of the government’s housing policy in general when it comes to the community housing sector, makes it clear that there is a lack of thinking about what outcomes we actually could get from community housing providers and what would be the appropriate ways of expanding the sector, despite the fact that the housing strategy claims that this is one of its goals.
There has been quite a bit of interest from three providers—CHC, YWCA and MARSS—in accessing the land tax concession scheme, which was first proposed by the Greens. Under this scheme, as we all know, private landlords who rent their properties at affordable rents through a registered community housing provider are exempt from paying land tax. Unfortunately, I say again that the program has been established only as a two-year trial. This does not provide the certainty that either participating landlords or community housing providers require. I again ask the government to make this an ongoing scheme with an evaluation. (Second speaking period taken.)
One of the major advantages of the community housing sector is that it can deliver housing outcomes at a much lower cost to government and, indeed, with higher tenant satisfaction than other types of social housing. It is disappointing that the government is not supporting this sector to the extent that it could.
The other area that is missing in this budget is a strong focus on homelessness. Indeed some programs are supporting people at risk of homelessness, but, appreciably, questions asked have shown that they do not actually provide any beds or homes for these people, so it is all unsatisfactory, to say the least. The government and the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video