Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I thank Senator Ludlam for giving us that indication. The opposition’s amendment goes to several quite specific issues. I want to touch on them very briefly so that people understand why the government is not supporting them. The first issue addressed by the amendment is part (a), which goes to the issue of incentives on a sliding scale. The government cannot support that to the extent that a sliding scale would be sought for refundable tax offsets, which within taxation law would be unconstitutional.

Secondly, in relation to the proposal for a transfer of tax offsets, the government’s position is that there may be some confusion between the refundable tax offset and a tax deduction and that there is no net benefit for parties that is derived from a transfer of incentive. Thirdly, regarding the amendment requiring state and territory governments to match Commonwealth incentives, the government believes that it is not in anyone’s interest to limit the ability of state and territory governments to contribute to the scheme and that this would prevent the state and territory governments from making contributions equal to or even exceeding the Commonwealth incentive. Fourthly, in relation to the conversion of existing residential stock, while I appreciate that Senator Payne was very clear in her second reading contribution about the challenge that there is in providing dwellings for residential purpose, the scheme will already provide for the conversion of dwellings that were not fit for residential purpose. But we have to remember that the scheme aims to increase the supply of affordable housing, not just focus on existing residential stock.

In relation to part (e), extending the upper levels of income by 30 per cent, the government’s position is that the scheme is planned for tenants on low-to-moderate incomes, and the scheme also allows for a 12-month period of grace when income levels are exceeded. It is the view of the government that a 30 per cent increase in the upper-income level will move the focus of the scheme into the moderate-to-high-income households, which is not the purpose of the bill. In relation to the two issues which Senator Ludlam has expressed interest in—the right to a solar panel rebate and having 20 per cent of the scheme incentives targeting projects of 20 dwellings or more—the scheme is already seeking applications that focus on sustainability features for dwellings. There is nothing in the scheme that would prevent investors from applying for rebates for which they may be eligible from other programs. Finally, in relation to the increase to 20 per cent of the scheme’s target projects of 20 dwellings or more, there is no limitation in the scheme on accepting proposals for 20 dwellings or more. Larger project proposals are preferred but are not mandatory; therefore, if proposals come forward that may be less than that, the government would consider the extent to which they met the requirements of the bill.