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

Before question time, I was summing up the debate on these bills and starting to discuss the concerns of opposition senators and senators on this side of the chamber about ensuring that we were reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving sustainability. We are also developing a national strategy for energy efficiency across all governments to accelerate energy efficiency efforts, and this strategy will also help households and businesses prepare for the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is consistent with the government’s policy direction on climate change and energy efficiency. Sustainability is one of the five criteria against which all applications for incentives under the scheme will be assessed. Dwellings which have building and design features that reduce carbon emissions and reduce energy and water costs for tenants will be assessed favourably under the scheme. The scheme also allows for the redevelopment of existing but uninhabitable stock, which would apply to many independent living units that need to be redeveloped for older people or people living with disabilities.

It is also important to point out that one of the criteria for assessing applications is whether the proposal delivers some accessibility outcomes. We will be reviewing the scheme early in its implementation to ensure that it continues to meet its twin objectives: to reduce rental stress and to increase the supply of affordable rental housing. With the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 the government is delivering on one of its most ambitious housing reforms: the establishment of a national rental affordability scheme.

Finally, the government acknowledges the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs into the bill. We appreciate the efforts of the Senate committee members and thank all the witnesses who gave their time to give evidence to the public hearing in Canberra on 6 November 2008. The committee’s work has greatly assisted the government in achieving such a good outcome for charities who participate in the scheme. I particularly want to acknowledge Senator Ludlam, whom I know has worked closely with Minister Plibersek’s office on these bills. The government also thanks the committee secretariat for conducting the inquiry in its usual professional and diligent manner. The government believes that the scheme will make a fundamental difference to Australians who are doing it tough in the private rental market. I commend the bills to the Senate.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Senator Payne’s second reading amendment be agreed to.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I note that the Australian Greens will be supporting parts (f) and (g) of Senator Payne’s second reading amendment.

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

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I thank both Senator Ludlam and Senator Stephens for their comments on this amendment. The opposition does press the amendment as we have moved it today. I acknowledge the support that the Greens have indicated in relation to parts (f) and (g) of the proposed amendment and seek further consideration in due course by the government of the items we have raised in parts (a) to (e).

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In view of the indication by the Greens, I propose that the motion be divided into two parts. In relation to Senator Payne’s amendment to the second reading, we will put items (a) to (e). We will consider that firstly. We will then consider (f) and (g) separately to that. I now put the question that the motion be agreed to in relation to items (a) to (e) of Senator Payne’s second reading amendment.

Question negatived.

I now put the question that the motion be agreed to in relation to items (f) and (g) in relation to Senator Payne’s amendment to the second reading.

Question agreed to.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:

but the Senate calls on the Government to:

(a)

include energy and water efficiency over the life-cycle of the building, sustainable building materials and sustainable waste management as criteria that National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) proposals must meet;

(b)

require the Minister to evaluate how the successful NRAS proposals have performed when benchmarked against relevant state and federal standards for each of the mandatory criteria (that is, those listed in Schedule 1, Set 1, paragraph (1)(c) of the draft National Rental Affordability Scheme Regulations 2008) within 3 months of each round of NRAS allocations being announced;

(c)

if any dwellings are found not to be meeting these high standards, require the Minister to review the criteria with the objective of improving the standard of properties approved under the NRAS; and

(d)

provide that NRAS properties must be close to public transport, noting that Schedule 1, Set 1, paragraph (1)(c)(i) of the draft regulations currently provides for proximity of dwellings to transport, but doesn’t specify public transport.

Question negatived.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bills read a second time.