Page 1017 - Week 03 - Thursday, 21 March 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
implementation of a 2016 parliamentary agreement item, which is the establishment of a not-for-profit real estate agency similar to HomeGround Real Estate in Victoria, which rents privately owned properties to low and moderate income earners at below market rent.
Other groups, such as the YWCA and CHC in Canberra, have also called for such a measure during the last year, arising from my motion and then Mr Parton’s aborted bill. However, Mr Coe talked about the amendment which the government is seeking to move which will limit the number of properties and the amount of money potentially expended on this. I have to say, Mr Coe, that I would be incredibly pleased and surprised if those amendments were even needed. My concern is not over-subscription; my concern is under-subscription. I think the government is being wildly optimistic in thinking that the amendments that it is moving today to limit it will be needed.
I would be delighted to find that I was wrong about that. What does disappoint me about the legislation is that it actually only provides for the scheme to run for two years, until 30 June 2021. This could be very helpful to tenants who are able to access rental accommodation as part of this scheme. A measure such as this, even if well-advertised and easy to access, is likely to attract only a modest number of participating landlords. Establishing it with an end date that is only a bit over two years in the future will almost certainly make it a less attractive proposition for any property owners who might be interested.
Even assuming that this is viewed as a trial rather than a short-term scheme, having an end date in the legislation sends a poor signal to prospective landlords and community housing providers who may wish to participate. I am concerned that, more than the amendments the government plans to move, it could result in lower participation. Also lacking in this legislation is any mechanism to review the scheme. If an evaluation were undertaken and reported on within one year of the scheme commencing, this would allow time to make any adjustments to the scheme and possibly an extension so that tenants could re-sign leases. I urge the government to consider doing this.
More positively, hopefully this scheme will complement the federal ALP’s proposed funding for affordable rental housing stock managed by community housing providers, which it has said it will introduce if it wins the upcoming federal election. On that point, I note that the proposed federal scheme, which essentially replaces the sadly shelved national rental affordability scheme, otherwise known as NRAS, will be far more generous that what is being proposed in this ACT legislation.
The subsidy, which will only be available for newly built dwellings that are managed by community housing providers, will provide an incentive of $8,500 per property per year for 15 years. While I acknowledge that land tax has been increasing in the ACT, there are very few, if any, properties that are actually paying $8,500 per year per property in land tax. I appreciate that there might be some in Forrest and Red Hill, but certainly they would be very few. So the ACT government scheme is considerably less generous than the federal ALP’s proposal. I am yet to hear any significant criticism of the federal ALP scheme or the one we are debating today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video