Sharryn Jackson (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise and support these two pieces of legislation, the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008, that establish the National Rental Affordability Scheme. The objective of the scheme is to encourage large-scale investment in housing by offering an incentive to participants in the scheme to increase the supply of affordable rental dwellings and to reduce rental costs for low- and moderate-income households. It is a key part of the Rudd government’s $2.2 billion affordable housing package, and the NRAS will increase the supply of affordable rental homes, help people save for their first home, lower housing costs and build new homes for the homeless.

There is quite substantial reasoning behind the legislation that is before the House. It is about the fact that an increasing number of Australians are experiencing housing stress. There is an absolute imperative, a great need, to stimulate the supply of lower rent homes. As many know, it is tougher than ever before for low- and moderate-income earners to find affordable rental housing for themselves and their families. Vacancy rates across Australia, including in the electorate of Hasluck, are at critically low levels, and rents are increasing faster than other everyday living costs. More and more families are spending more than 30 per cent of their limited income on rent. That is generally the level at which commentators assess that a household is facing mortgage or rental stress. Once upon a time, many Australians rented as a stepping stone to the purchase of their own home; now many are finding it harder to save the deposit.

I welcome the introduction to parliament of these bills to establish the scheme. This new program, which delivers one of Labor’s 2007 election commitments, is a $623 million investment that will create 50,000 affordable rental properties for low- and moderate-income earners in its first four years. Increasing the supply of affordable rental housing is a priority for the Rudd Labor government. Across Australia, nearly 700,000 low- and moderate-income families are now spending more than 30 per cent of their limited incomes just to pay the rent. In Hasluck, based on 2006 census data, 2,406 households, or 36.2 per cent of households renting, are experiencing rental stress. These people are being forced to move house, to live with other families or relatives, to live in cramped conditions or to cut back on essentials just to keep a roof over their heads. I think in Western Australia we have seen even greater housing and rental pressure than in other states. That is why increasing the supply of affordable rental homes is a major priority for this government.

The scheme essentially offers incentives to providers of new dwellings on the condition that they are rented to low- and moderate-income households at 20 per cent below market rates. That incentive comprises a Commonwealth contribution of a refundable tax offset or payment to the value of $6,000 per dwelling per year and a state or territory contribution of direct financial support or in-kind contribution to the value of $2,000 per dwelling per year. I would hope that the West Australian state government continues to honour its commitments to meet that in-kind or direct financial support contribution. The incentive will be provided each year for 10 years to complying participants and will be indexed in line with the rental component of the consumer price index. It is important to say that this scheme provides a new opportunity for all levels of government, federal, state and local, to work together with business and not-for-profit organisations to meet that objective of increasing the supply of affordable rental dwellings. I believe it will also facilitate new and creative partnerships between traditional institutional investors, perhaps hopefully even superannuation funds as well as developers and community housing providers.

We know from the terms of the legislation that it is to be reviewed in its early years of operation to test whether there cannot be further modifications made to reduce the administrative burden to ensure that it is meeting whatever the evolving issues are in this area and also to ensure that it is addressing issues of noncompliance. Most of the administrative details of operation will be covered in regulations to provide flexibility to address changing circumstances, as I have indicated.

Importantly, there are some mandatory assessment criteria. They include five criteria in section 7 of the legislation: a demonstrated need for the proposal; the delivery of accessibility and sustainability outcomes; the participant has demonstrated capacity and experience to deliver the proposal; the proposal is financially viable; and the priority areas of interest are addressed in the proposal. I note that applications for round 1 have already been called for and the priority areas for round 1 as set out in the explanatory memorandum: are directed towards rental dwellings that will become available for rent in this financial year, 2008-09; large-scale projects, over 100 dwellings; to be consistent with state, territory and local government affordable housing priorities; and to include dwellings for tenants with special needs, in particular people with disabilities, older Australians and Indigenous Australians. Of course, overriding this is the aim to maximise long-term affordable housing outcomes for tenants.

As I said earlier, this scheme is a part of a $2.2 billion affordable housing package. The package includes a number of measures designed to increase the supply of affordable housing, to help people save for their first home and to lower housing costs and build new homes for the homeless. I want to take this opportunity—perhaps straying a bit from the bill—to say that I am pleased that the First Home Saver Accounts legislation is well and truly on its way to being in place because I know that many first home buyers are finding it tougher than ever to buy a house. The average first home mortgage has more than doubled in the last eight years, from some $123,000 in December 2000 to 246,500 in July 2008.

Fewer low- and moderate-income earners are able to buy a first home. Only 17.6 per cent of first home buyers came from the bottom 40 per cent of earners in 2005-06, compared to over 20 per cent from this group a decade ago. Households in the bottom 20 per cent of earners that are lucky enough to buy a first home then use up 66 per cent of their income to pay for the privilege. This is why the Rudd government is investing $1.2 billion in new first home saver accounts to help aspiring first home buyers save a deposit for a home.

In addition, contributions to first home saver accounts will not be subject to tax when contributed to an account, and interest on the accounts will be taxed at 15 per cent rather than at the account holder’s marginal rate. This mirrors the tax treatment provided to superannuation, ensuring that young Australians get support to buy a first home similar to the help older Australians get to save for retirement. We hope that by 2012 there will be more than $6.5 billion saved in these new accounts. That is just one measure.

Another measure is the Housing Affordability Fund. The federal government is putting half a billion on the table to invest in infrastructure that currently adds tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of houses. The money will also provide an incentive to local governments to cut red tape, in particular, to reduce planning and development delays that can add significantly to the cost of new homes. Local governments, in conjunction with the private sector, will come forward with proposals applying for the Commonwealth grants. These will be assessed on a competitive basis—on how much they can reduce the cost of housing and pass on savings to homebuyers. It is a partnership between federal, state and local government to create more affordable housing. The fund provides local governments, as well as state and territory governments, with the financial incentive to reform and streamline planning processes and reduce costs to develop land. Only governments that are prepared to undertake reform will receive grants under the fund. The federal government is interested in solving problems and improving housing affordability, not playing the ‘blame game’. Importantly, another part of the Rudd government’s program, A Place to Call Home, will deliver some 600 new dwellings for homeless people.

I have taken some time to go over items in the housing affordability package put forward by the government largely because I spent some time this afternoon listening to speeches made by members opposite and some days ago I listened to the member for Cook as he addressed the legislation and proposed an amendment. I oppose the amendment proposed by the member for Cook. I take up a number of issues with him and with members opposite concerning their response to this legislation and to the scheme.

In his proposed amendment, the member for Cook goes to a number of specific criteria which he would seek to have applied to the National Rental Affordability Scheme. I would argue that most of what he seeks to do is at best unnecessary but perhaps also in some places unclear. For example, I have talked about how the legislation contains sufficient flexibility to allow adjustments to the scheme to ensure that it addresses evolving issues. Many of those evolving issues—the way in which the scheme operates, compliance issues—give the government flexibility to deal with issues as they practically unfold on the ground.

A number of members opposite have talked at length about questions involving sustainability. Indeed, the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Cook seeks to specifically apply certain federal government subsidies to the rental dwellings included under the proposal, subsidies such as the federal government’s solar panel rebate and solar hot water rebate. I take members to the five mandatory criteria currently contained within the legislation against which proposals will be assessed. One of those criteria includes the issues of sustainability and accessibility, and I draw that to the attention of members. Members who have some passing knowledge of planning issues in their own state will be aware that many state and local governments supply quite detailed planning requirements with respect to, particularly, sustainability issues but also, in some jurisdictions, accessibility issues for people with a disability.

If you are going to have a partnership with local and state and territory governments, it is important that you indicate that it is a significant, important criterion in funding priorities that accessibility and sustainability are addressed. It would be absurd to limit that solely to current federal government rebates, as opposed to including the broad range of sustainability measures, often innovative measures, that are being taken in our states by state and local governments.

It seems to me that the flavour of many opposition speeches in response to the legislation has been that of the good old blame game. I think the opposition fail to recognise that one of the clear objectives of the legislation is to try to create partnerships with state, territory and local governments, as opposed to setting state governments against the federal government, setting state governments against local governments and setting local governments against the federal government. We want to share the priority and the goal of increasing the supply of affordable rental housing stock throughout the country, throughout our local areas.

I cannot let the comments of the member for Pearce go regarding responsibility for the reduction in the levels of public housing stock in Western Australia, which she laid at the feet of the former state Labor government. I think it is important for the purposes of the record to clarify for her sake that the public housing stock in Western Australia began to be reduced in 1996 by the then state Liberal government, with a number of schemes that were directly related to trying to move people from public housing, or Homeswest, accommodation into other forms of accommodation—in some cases, with people purchasing their own homes. For example, between 30 June 1996 and 30 March 1999 we saw a reduction of almost 2,000 public housing dwellings in Western Australia.

Given my comments about wanting to work in partnership, it is a sad thing to have to say that, with the election of the new Liberal state government in Western Australia, they are at it again. I was incredibly concerned to see media releases from the now Minister for Housing and Works, the Hon. Troy Buswell, who is probably famous in this place and many other places in Australia for aspects of his behaviour and not necessarily for his expertise in the housing area. He has decided to order a review of public housing stock in ‘high-end suburbs of Perth’ with a view to eventually reinvesting the value of some properties to greater effect elsewhere. In other words, he is looking at moving public housing stock out of Perth’s more affluent suburbs and into other areas in Western Australia. That would be a great shame and does not seem to me to add anything either to the debate or to the quality of housing made available for low- and middle-income earners. I urge the minister to review his decision—and I urge my colleagues from Western Australia to ask the minister to review his decision—and to look at a far more sensible investment in public housing stock than moving it from his mates’ leafy suburbs to other suburbs within the metropolitan area. I find the hypocrisy from the opposition in respect of this debate extraordinary, given that they are the party that was in federal government for over a decade and gave absolutely no priority to housing.

Now what we have before us is a comprehensive package of measures, and this National Rental Affordability Scheme is what we are dealing with this afternoon in the legislation before the House. They are commendable measures. I would say again that the National Rental Affordability Scheme provides incentives to participants to build new dwellings for renting to low- and moderate-income households at rates 20 per cent below market rates. It is hoped that more than 1.5 million households around Australia will be eligible to rent these dwellings at a 20 per cent discount to the market rate. That is a marvellous thing, as is the rest of the housing affordability package that is being put forward by the Rudd Labor government. I simply wish to record my appreciation and congratulate the Minister for Housing, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, for this wonderful raft of legislation. I commend the bills to the House.

See this speech in context