- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 19 October 2005
Residential Tenancies Amendment (Social Housing) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 42 of 57
| Next Item »
Page: 18833
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.34 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Social Housing) Bill, which was drafted on the basis of the Government's plan for reshaping public housing, which was announced on 27 April 2005 by former Premier Carr. It is said that the reshaping public housing reforms announced in April this year are intended to ensure that public housing is well placed to assist those in greatest need.
There are six aspects to the bill. The first set of amendments deals with providing a process to assess eligibility to continue in public housing and allow for termination when someone is no longer eligible. The bill provides for eligibility for public housing to be based on the concept of housing need, rather than the traditional measure of income level as the primary eligibility criterion. Of course, income will still be a criterion, but housing need will take precedence as the primary eligibility criterion.
The bill will end the policy of public housing for life, which will be replaced by assistance for the duration of need through a range of renewable leases from two to ten years. Specifically, the current regime allows for a person who does not breach the tenancy agreement to enjoy the benefits of public housing for life regardless of housing need. The policy behind the bill is that all new tenants from 1 July 2005 will be placed on a fixed-term lease commencing some time after July 2006. These leases will range from two to ten years.
The tenure of the lease will be proportionate to the perceived need of the tenant as determined by the Department of Housing. Thus, the ten-year leases will be aimed at households most in need, perhaps elderly pensioners or individuals who are disabled and with persistent difficulties. The five-year leases will be aimed at households, such as families with children at school and those whose circumstances may change when their children's schooling is complete, or households in which the parents are undertaking training to move into the work force or change jobs. Two-year leases will be provided to individuals with issues that may be addressed within that time frame—for example, homeless people.
The second set of amendments relates to ensuring consistent treatment of tenants and operational flexibility for landlords despite long fixed-term leases. The introduction of fixed-term leases for up to 10 years will involve a major change in operations for social housing landlords. It is necessary that the social housing system that encompasses and administers 138,000 properties be operationally flexible. Some discretion is needed in managing properties that are used by public housing tenants.
One of the most significant changes this bill will make can be found in proposed section 9A, which will enable regulations to be made to introduce particular terms or conditions to apply to all social housing leases. This will allow any changes to policy to be introduced for all tenants at the same time. The principle underlying these changes is to ensure consistency among social housing tenants regardless of when they sign their tenancy agreements or the length of their agreements. Consistency is important, especially when so many clients are provided services. However, some flexibility is required when the circumstances of clients differ. Some discretion is needed to cater for the specific needs of the public housing tenants affected.
Charging for water usage is perhaps the most controversial provision in the bill. We have been raising concerns about this provision in this House. On 15th September Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes asked:
Is the Minister aware that the Department of Housing plans to bill its tenants for water charges? In particular, is the Minister aware that about half the number of public housing tenants do not have their water charges separately metered and will be charged based on the water consumption of the entire property?
As far as I am aware, no answer was given to that question. One could argue that the bill is the answer to the question. Charging for water usage is a most contentious issue. We have received a number of representations from public housing tenants, including the peak organisations representing the interests of public housing tenants such as Shelter NSW, which shared its concerns with us at a crossbench meeting. Proposed section 19A provides:
It is a term of every housing tenancy agreement that the tenant must pay to the landlord any charges, determined in accordance with guidelines approved by the Minister, in respect of water usage by the tenant.
The Minister, in determining the water charge attaching to public housing tenants, may take into consideration such things as the actual usage or estimated usage, the income of the tenants, the rent payable for the premises to which the agreement relates, whether with or without rent rebates, and the Minister may require water usage charges to be paid by the tenant in advance of actual usage. It is clear that putting water meters in every unit of public housing would involve a massive cost. However, we would still like an assessment of how much it would cost because the system to be introduced will cause some conflict and divisions among public housing tenants. A senior citizen may use hardly any water but down the road a family of a couple of adults and five children may use a lot of water yet both households will be charged the same, and this could lead to tension or problems in the way those people get on with each other.
Another important aspect of the bill is the extension of the reshaping reforms to the Aboriginal Housing Office and potentially to community housing. As I visit Aboriginal communities I am pleased to see the very fine houses that are being built in various locations. I refer particularly to Mulli Mulli near Woodenbong near the Queensland border. The fine brick homes that have been erected in that Aboriginal community are being well cared for by the families there. These amendments will ensure that the public housing system is focused on housing people who are most in need and that the available supply of housing is shared fairly among those people. As with other legislation containing major changes, its operation will need to be monitored and amendments may have to be introduced to deal with perceived problems. The bill is a step in the right direction and should be given a fair trial.
The Hon. JON JENKINS [3.42 p.m.]: I also support the bill. However, I have concerns about some of the eligibility and water usage issues. On eligibility, people's circumstances change and if they get part-time work they may suddenly become ineligible for public housing. Will they then be removed? How do we handle people's changing requirements—sometimes they change dramatically within a short period. I realise that these are operational issues but we need reassurance that there is planning for this. With regard to charging for metered and unmetered properties—this is obviously a controversial issue—in discussions with respective advisers I suggested that after passage of the bill there be a review to assess how water metering charges are progressing, to assess fairness of application between metered and unmetered properties, whether on a per-person or per-household basis, after useful statistics have become available. To that end I will move an amendment in Committee. That is an operational issue. I have suggested that the Energy Ombudsman could assess how the charges are being apportioned and whether the system is relatively fair. Other than those points, my concerns are fairly minor.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.44 p.m.]: Before I turn to the specifics of this bill it is necessary to provide an overview of the affordable housing problem that plagues Sydney and other areas of the State. I will also refer to social housing practice in other global cities and make clear why it is important to reverse the current direction of the Government's housing policy as exemplified in the bill. On coming to office the new Premier, Morris Iemma, said that he considered affordable housing to be a priority, along with disability and health. It was a matter of simple decency, he said. Everyone was pleased to hear his words but the substance, as manifested in this bill, gives the lie to those words. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Ian Macfarlane, on 12 August 2005 said:
[Sydney is] so expensive that particularly for a lot of young people, it's in their interests to go elsewhere, where their lifestyle is more affordable and for older people, a lot of them I think are cashing out. Sydney is still extraordinarily expensive.
I have to say I get a little impatient when I hear of the real estate industry in New South Wales saying what we have to do is get house prices going up again, that somehow or other that's going to save New South Wales. That's Sydney's problem, it's not its solution.
Mr Macfarlane advised young people to flee Sydney because they can never afford to buy a home here. And it is not just the cost of buying a home: rents are high enough to put many people on low to medium incomes into housing stress. That is, they need to spend more than 30 per cent of their disposable incomes on rent. Although we hear much about how many people are coming to Sydney, we hear less about who is deserting it. The research of Adelaide university geographer Graham Hugo shows that Sydney loses a net 15,000 people each year. Half go to the other States and Territories and half go to the coast. One might think that most of these émigrés are retirees, but this is not so. Many are in their twenties and thirties with young children. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that in the three years to mid-2004 New South Wales lost a net 11,400 people aged under 40. Housing costs were obviously a factor in this movement.
Eventually, as those on median incomes leave, Sydney will become even more dysfunctional than it is now. Some North Shore councils such as Willoughby are starting to research the problem of recruiting staff. A recent study by the University of Western Sydney, the New South Wales Labor Council and Shelter NSW found that many essential service workers, if they have managed to buy into the housing market, are travelling incredibly long distances to work or living closer to their work but paying high rents. Research by Professor Judy Yates from the University of Sydney has shown that a growing number of people are becoming perpetual renters and that the assumption that renting is a transitional form of housing tenure is not founded in fact. Unlike renters in some European countries, renters in New South Wales have a very limited security of tenure. In fact, they have not much at all, considering that they can be required to vacate for no reason at all provided they are given 60 days notice.
The review of the Residential Tenancies Act makes vague noises about the desirability of landlords offering longer leases. But landlords who are keen to capitalise on their investment will resist tying property up in long-term leases. At the same time the Government is bringing in new policies for public housing tenants designed precisely to erode their security of tenure, to make their leases shorter. They will be subject to renewable leases. These policies are known as "Reshaping Public Housing". The Greens believe that these policies, part of which are supported by this bill, are more about residual lies than reshaping public housing. We really do need action not stock platitudes or the "market-will-deliver" responses that we have heard from the Government. A government and Premier truly committed to public housing would triple the size of the social housing sector over the next 10 years and broaden eligibility to ensure tenant diversity and cross-subsidisation from a mix of rents.
I will not enumerate all the other measures that could accompany this. I have raised them before in this House and they are set out in detail in papers presented to the National Affordable Housing Conference earlier this year. If all these measures were instituted, preferably underpinned by Federal Government money or tax subsidies, we would be on the way to addressing the high housing prices that bedevil Sydney and other Australian cities. All these measures have been discussed ad nauseam at conferences on housing affordability, and by the State and Territory housing Ministers. Why are we still waiting for genuine action? New South Wales could show genuine leadership and start the process. It is either that or wait until Sydney and other parts of New South Wales become even more driven by the divides of wealth and poverty, advantage and disadvantage, secure housing and homelessness.
In European countries the social housing sector is broader and more diverse than it is in Australia, and it provides housing for up to 30 per cent of the population of those countries. The United Kingdom, for example, has an extensive social housing sector which houses 30 per cent of the population. The sector consists of what are known as registered social landlords, a category that includes councils and not-for-profit housing associations and co-operatives. Almost all of those organisations are funded by grants from the Housing Corporation, by rent revenues and by borrowings against assets. Tenants also receive a housing benefit that is paid directly to the landlord and ensures that rents are affordable. The housing benefit is much more generous than the Commonwealth's capped rental assistance payment.
Councils and housing associations in the United Kingdom generate a surplus, which they can reinvest in maintenance and new housing. The United Kingdom's registered social landlords usually make a surplus, which is used to repay loans and pay for maintenance, building or purchasing new stock and renovation. How is it that the United Kingdom does this, but government social housing providers in this country lose money? Very simply, the social housing sector in the United Kingdom embraces a large enough proportion of the population to allow for cross-subsidisation, and government provides subsidies. In addition to this social housing stock, new housing stock is made available for rental or purchase within private developments in the United Kingdom. This is made possible under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
Over time London developed a huge affordability problem. To address this the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, set a target of 50 per cent of affordable housing in all new developments. Affordable housing is basically below market cost or subsidised housing. We should look at London if we want to see what Sydney's future should be. Like Sydney, London and similar cities, such as Tokyo, are global cities—centres for the new economy, and finance and related industries. In London teachers, nurses and other essential service workers could not afford to live close to their workplaces because the escalation of incomes drives up house prices and rent, meaning that housing costs escalated. Many simply moved out of London to smaller towns, or started working in areas closer to their far-flung home suburbs. A shortage of labour in certain sectors ensued.
The United Kingdom Government and municipal councils were forced to address this problem through the Key Worker Housing Scheme. Under this scheme, units of social housing are earmarked for certain categories of workers in certain boroughs. A worker can apply for this housing and either buy it at a discounted rate, or a proportion of it, or rent it. Some of this housing is literally part of the work site. For example, teachers' residences have been located on school land. We have done practically nothing in New South Wales—I say "practically" because there is one block of units in Thornleigh owned by the Department of Housing and dedicated to housing essential service workers. It is one block of units of, I believe, about eight apartments. So we have in fact housed eight key workers. This is a pilot project only.
What we should be doing in Sydney is what Ken Livingstone has done and is doing in London: mandating the inclusion of affordable housing in all new multi-unit developments. There are few examples of this in New South Wales because the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act currently prohibits the levying of developers for affordable housing purposes, except where the areas are listed in State environmental planning policy [SEPP] 70. Two areas are currently listed in SEPP 70—the City West designated areas in Ultimo, Pyrmont and Green Square, and the North Sydney local government area. Developers within these SEPP 70 areas can be levied in the order of 3 per cent.
City West is a thriving housing company because it was given a good start. Money to set it up came from the developer levy, the Federal Government and the State Government. City West illustrates how a housing company providing affordable housing can work if it is set up at the beginning with enough stock and tenant income mix. Dare I use a cliché, but City West proves, and overseas evidence proves, that running a financially viable, affordable housing association is not rocket science. It is relatively easy to set up a housing association. What is needed is start-up money. After that, good management and in-house development and maintenance can keep costs down. We have to remember that prior to the 1980s the Department of Housing covered its costs and was in fact a financially self-sustaining operation.
The Greens have developed a bill to extend these City West type schemes throughout New South Wales by removing the barriers to this from the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. I will introduce that bill when I have the opportunity to do so. Councils want it. They are struggling with the lack of affordable housing and Department of Housing stock is very scarce—especially in areas such as Tweed Heads and Byron shire, which are now inordinately expensive. It seems a bit sad or remiss that the Government has not done this already and caught up with London and other world cities. Such housing would be a supplement to the already existing public housing stock, housing workers as well as those not in the work force, such as the elderly, those on pensions and young people who are studying.
Another model to consider is the Netherlands model of social housing. The Dutch Government set this up by providing long-term loans to housing associations. I am informed by a briefing paper on expanding affordable housing supply in Australia that:
… over 40 per cent of the total stock in the Netherlands is in the social housing sector, most of that in the form of non-profit housing associations. The Dutch Government has capitalised future annual subsidies and applied this amount to cancelling the outstanding debt of the housing associations sector on its existing stock. This means that the sector now has ownership of a valuable resource that serves as the collateral on which—
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Point of order: Madam Deputy-President, I point out the constant jabbing, and the unruly and rude interjections from the Labor Party while Ms Sylvia Hale is delivering her second reading speech. I ask you to bring your unruly Labor members to order.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I remind all members that interjections are disorderly at all times.
Ms SYLVIA HALE: I assure you, Madam Deputy-President, that I will simply remain silent while the chattering continues and resume my speech when it has stopped. The briefing paper to which I was referring continues:
The Dutch Government has capitalized future annual subsidies and applied this amount to cancelling the outstanding debt of the housing association sector on its existing stock. This means that the sector now has ownership of a valuable resource that serves as the collateral on which individual housing associations borrow to finance additions to their stock. About 90 per cent of new dwelling construction by the associations is financed by bank-provided loan finance.
Scandinavian countries also have extensive social housing sectors, including a significant co-operative sector where people live in discrete dwellings but share some facilities such as common rooms, children's playgrounds and playrooms, and laundries. We have a limited number of government-funded co-operatives here, but those we do have are often very successful. The Greens will not support this bill without significant amendments, which I will outline later. I note here the comments of Clover Moore on this bill in the other place and her attempt to amend the bill along similar lines. I note also the Hon. Jon Jenkins's amendment, which the Greens also intended to move because it will act as a slightly ameliorative measure.
The bill underpins the policies known as Reshaping Public Housing. These policies continue to ration, reduce and take public housing away from more people. The Greens will oppose most of the content of the bill as it allows for the implementation policies that discriminate against public housing tenants. We do not believe that the content of Reshaping Public Housing progresses social housing; rather, it regresses it to an era of alms for the poor. Rather than diversifying social housing, the Government is narrowing eligibility. Rather than opening doors, it is closing them. Rather than allowing low-income workers to live in public housing, and therefore help cross-subsidise rents, the department will be asking them to leave public housing. Rather than building more public housing, the Government is demolishing, redeveloping and selling off public housing to its developer mates.
Public housing is being cannibalised, and this bill will have the effect of speeding up the process. These policies interact very badly with Federal policies and Centrelink rules. What happens to the single parent who is being asked by Centrelink to take a job, when she knows that if she takes a job that pays the median wage she may lose her public housing because she will no longer be eligible? No thought seems to have been given to this; it is another example of dysfunctional federalism at work. The Government has a bad habit of pursuing self-defeating policies, and then asking why social problems and disadvantage are concentrated in some public housing estates. Certainly there are no easy answers.
But surely restricting eligibility even further than it has already been restricted is a clue that the Government will not significantly expand supply, and as such has to ration more tightly the crumbs that are left. The Government saves money in one way but, over time, it costs more because the Department of Housing will be operating with a greater deficit. If the Government has these assets worth billions, why not use them to build a revenue-neutral outcome, and house more people at the same time? It is the Government's current policies and the policies of the past that have led to this situation.
The Reshaping Public Housing policies are nothing short of a recipe for continued decline. The Government is squandering a resource put in place by its post-war Labor Party predecessors. However, it is not too late by any means to take a more positive attitude to social and affordable housing in this State. While the Greens have great misgivings about many provisions in the bill, because the bill is symptomatic of a dead-end approach, we are committed to dialogue with the Government and the Minister for Housing. We regularly talk to public housing tenants and others about how to make real improvements. Unfortunately this bill continues on the wrong path. It is not a positive piece of legislation, although it does contain a couple of changes that the Greens support.
The Minister for Housing, Cherie Burton, outlined the six main intentions within the bill. I will now speak to them. The Minister opened with the statement, "These reforms focus on the fair allocation of scarce resources to those most in need in our community." Is social housing a scarce resource, and if so, why and who has made it scarce? The Commonwealth is certainly partially to blame, as it has reduced funding in real terms under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. However, the New South Wales Labor Government has allowed public housing to slide into an untenable position, entirely through its own efforts and policies. In the 1980s the Government decided to ration public housing more tightly, and that is when the downward spiral began.
Minister Cherie Burton herself was a resident of public housing in her childhood. We do not know whether her family would have been affected by these policies had they been in place while she was a public housing tenant. She may have benefited from the previous policies, which allowed workers to live in Housing Commission houses. I wonder whether our housing estates today are being managed in such a way that kids living in them now can grow up aspiring to be a Minister in a State government. The Minister claimed in her second reading speech that there would be "significant investment in the renewal of public housing". The New South Wales Government has matched and exceeded the Commonwealth's contribution, and that is praiseworthy. The last budget contained a promise that the money will be spent over 10 years. However, this money is not enough to turn around the department's ongoing basic problem: that public housing does not generate sufficient income to pay for itself because it does not house enough people—or enough people on sufficient incomes.
The social housing sector would need to be about triple its current size to house everyone in need. It would need to be three times its size to reach economies of scale and be financially self-sustaining. The needy will be housed first; we agree with the Government on that. But over time, if supply is expanded, a broader range of people could be housed. This would bring the social housing sector to about 15 per cent, instead of the current 5 per cent, of the total housing sector, which is still only half the size of the United Kingdom's 30 per cent. Then public housing would pay for itself and house the sort of people that it used to house prior to the policy of hyper-rationing—namely, low to median income workers. The Government would benefit from the extra income. The Minister also said in her second reading speech:
The New South Wales Government is committed to allocating the valuable resource of public housing to those most in need because this approach delivers the best outcomes. Well-targeted public housing assistance provides the opportunity to maximise the outcomes of health, welfare, educational and support services provided to tenants by other New South Wales agencies. It provides the best outcome for Government and, more importantly, for the people in greatest need.
I have been told that so many times by tenants who have gained from affordable and, most importantly, stable housing. But when the Minister says allocating resources to those most in need will provide the best outcome for government, the Greens beg to differ. Narrowing eligibility and moving people earning median incomes out of public housing does little for the overall diversity of the community. It can increase concentrations of disadvantage. At a recent forum on poverty held in the Parliament, Professor Bill Randolph told us that concentrating disadvantage in public housing estates is now out of favour in other countries with social housing sectors. Yet the policies suggested in Reshaping Public Housing narrow eligibility.
Although the department is reconfiguring some of its estates, such as those at Minto and Bonnyrigg, this has involved the sell off or partial privatisation of a portion of these estates. Minto has been a disaster, and for that we have only to thank the former Minister, Carl Scully, who we should call the Minister for botched public-private partnerships [PPPs]. While the Government is happy to create a greater social mix in newly valued suburbs such as Minto by selling some of its land to private developers, will the logic of social mix be extended to middle-class enclaves, for example, those on the North Shore? Should we have more social and affordable housing in well-located areas such as Vaucluse or Cammeray mixed in with private housing? Or is social mix something that occurs only in low-income yet appreciating areas, where public housing that is appreciating in value is sold off to private home buyers?
The Greens agree that the most needy must be housed first, but we believe that creating a greater and more diverse pool of affordable housing should be funded by grants from the State and through levies on the private sector. The Government's record has been disappointing. I do not think that the current Minister for Housing's predecessors, Messrs Scully and Tripodi, showed that they had much real interest or vision for the New South Wales social housing sector. Mr Scully's contribution was, as I have said, a botched PPP at Minto, and Mr Tripodi confined himself to insinuating that public housing tenants drove around in BMWs.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Disgraceful.
Ms SYLVIA HALE: Indeed, it was disgraceful, and many public housing tenants thought it was disgraceful. Department of Housing staff have had to put up with constant ministerial changes and endless restructuring. We are hoping that the new Minister will be able to think bigger, provide some stability and really take on the task of revitalising social housing in this State. I turn now to the details of the bill. The eligibility to continue in public housing can be assessed at the end of the lease and allows for termination where the tenant is determined to no longer—
[Interruption]
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Order!
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: As much as I dislike the contribution of the Hon. Sylvia Hale, I have been attempting to follow the standing orders and listen in silence to her contribution, but in the latter part of her contribution I am having great difficulty doing that, given the continual interjections of the Hon. Melinda Pavey, including some delusion that she has the right to start shouting "Order!" like a demented parrot. I ask you to call the Hon. Melinda Pavey to order so that we can hear the contribution of the Hon. Sylvia Hale, which may finish more quickly than otherwise.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! Members should not use terms that are derogatory of the Chair in order to confuse the member who has the call.
Ms SYLVIA HALE: It is difficult when there are such insightful contributions to the debate, such as I have heard from the Hon. Amanda Fazio. As I said, the Government's record has been disappointing. I will now turn to the details of the bill. The eligibility to continue in public housing can be assessed at the end of the lease and allows for termination where the tenant is determined to no longer be eligible.
The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: The noise being made by the Hon. Henry Tsang, the Hon. Amanda Fazio and the Hon. Jon Jenkins is so great that the Hon. Sylvia Hale is unable to continue her contribution. I ask you to call all of those members to order and request them to observe the standing orders.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: To the point of order: Earlier in her contribution the Hon. Sylvia Hale indicated that if she felt people were talking and not paying attention to her she would stop speaking until there was complete silence in the Chamber. That is a decision she made, but I do not think that one individual member has the right to impose those conditions on everyone else in the Chamber. I think that the level of noise that the Hon. Don Harwin was referring to was no greater than normally occurs in the Chamber. I ask you to rule against the point of order, but ask the Hon. Sylvia Hale to keep speaking without having these very long pauses—for dramatic effect, I presume.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The Hon. Sylvia Hale will return to her speech and other members will reduce the level of chatter in the Chamber.
Ms SYLVIA HALE: Could I point out that I have forgone the honorific title of "honourable" and I would appreciate it if members would respect that decision. As I was saying, the eligibility to continue in public housing can be assessed at the end of the lease and allows for termination where the tenant is determined to no longer be eligible. This more easily allows the department to move tenants out where the tenant, for example, has a job. We forget that as recently as the 1980s it was considered acceptable to work and live in public housing, as long as the tenant paid a higher rent proportional to income, or market rent when the tenant's income exceeded a certain threshold. These higher rents helped to cross-subsidise other lower rents. This is how the United Kingdom system operates: councils and registered social landlords operate their housing with a mixed-income base. We are not talking about housing millionaires, just ordinary people on the median wage.
If the Labor Government had not lost touch with progressive social policy, it would look overseas or even interstate and see how far out of step New South Wales is on the issue of public housing. I will take one example from the Gloucestershire Rural Housing Association in the United Kingdom. On its web site in regard to applications for housing, the association says:
Lettings will normally be to those in greatest need, although the association will also have regard to using the stock effectively, reducing the number of empty and under-occupied properties, improving the turnaround time for void properties, maximising rent income and creating balanced communities.
I ask members to note the last line, "maximising rent income and creating balanced communities". The New South Wales Department of Housing has no such aims; in fact, it wants to minimise rental income, minimise stock and create more disadvantaged communities. The United Kingdom also assists with the payment of grants to registered social landlords. The Blair Labour Government at least has some commitment to a certain standard of living. It works to targets and has shown an ongoing commitment to the social housing sector. That enthusiasm has not been shown in New South Wales. The Greens agree that there has to be some eligibility requirement, but we need to expand supply and widen eligibility over a 10-year to 15-year period so that people earning up to 120 per cent of the median wage would remain eligible and more people could be housed to create the cross-subsidies required. The Minister in her second reading speech said:
At the end of these agreements, tenants will have to demonstrate an ongoing need for public housing.
The Minister here is referring to fixed term tenancy agreements of two, five or 10 years. The eligibility criterion for public housing allocation is already very stringent. To have any chance of actually being allocated a dwelling in under 10 years, a tenant needs to be on a low income, that is, specifically earn less than $395 a week gross income, if single, or less than $500 a week gross income if part of a couple. The second criterion is that they must be able to live independently and without support. One might then be put on the wait turn list, but it is well known that almost all allocations are not from the wait turn list but from the priority list, and that over 50 per cent of all applications are priority applications.
To be on the priority list one needs to have some, or preferably all, of the following attributes: be homeless or at risk of homelessness; be in an at-risk situation, such as domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, threatening behaviour by one or more household members against another, torture and trauma; a severe ongoing medical condition; have a disability; be living in overcrowded accommodation, accommodation without essential facilities such as water; and be over 80 years of age. Finally, prospective tenants have to show an inability to live in the private rental housing market. One of the criteria for this is affordability of private rental housing. The Department of Housing policy states:
Rent is considered affordable if it does not exceed 50 per cent of the household's total gross weekly income.
To be paying 50 per cent, that is, paying half of gross income on rent, is considered affordable by the Department of Housing. That the department deems 50 per cent of income being spent on income as affordable would be news to housing experts, academics specialising in housing economics and even mortgage lenders. Housing affordability is widely accepted to be when a person in the lowest 40 per cent of income distribution is paying less than 30 per cent of their disposable income on housing. I could cite many different academic publications, including papers from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, that use this measure. Even Centrelink uses a similar measure when it is calculating how much rent assistance to pay its clients in private rental.
But the Department of Housing in New South Wales does not follow the same definition of affordability as everybody else. This is probably because the department knows that if it adopted the 30 per cent benchmark, suddenly many people struggling in the private rental market would be deemed in urgent need and be added to the department's waiting list. Now the Government wants to make it easier to terminate tenancies as soon as people have managed to stabilise their lives and get a job. Public housing tenants will be turfed out into that great paradise of housing choice, the private rental market.
In the private rental market tenants will pay more rent, probably more often, leave their community and move their children to different schools. The private landlord gives them a 60 days no grounds notice to leave. Rents can rise with 60 days notice and there is no limit on rent increases in New South Wales. A recent one-day conference held by Shelter New South Wales examined research showing that public housing support leads to improved outcomes in areas such as health, education and social cohesion. Tenants benefit enormously from the affordability and stability that public housing offers.
The loss of secure housing can result in reduced health, education and general wellbeing. For a parent with children, this can mean their child has to change schools. Studies show that the more times a child changes schools, the worse the education outcome. A study by Professor Peter Phibbs from the University of Sydney has confirmed this. Also, the estate from which the tenant is removed might lose a valuable member of the community. Recently Annie Atkinson, a Glebe public housing tenant, addressed the crossbenchers and explained her involvement and that of other tenants in their community, undertaking volunteer work and looking after the elderly. Two other tenants in their sixties from Glebe are about to lose their housing. One has lived in the Glebe estate for all of her 60 years. She cared for her mother for many years. Both she and her partner now work part time and casually, and are about to retire, but they are also about to lose the home in which they have lived for more than 20 years.
All the changes proposed in the bill are designed to make it easier to terminate people's tenancies as soon as they start earning a reasonable income. What the Government will accomplish by this is twofold: a loss of revenue when tenants earning an income and paying market rent lose their tenancies and a concentration of unemployed or not-in-the-labour-force people in public housing estates. This latter point is contrary to the department's stated policy of creating greater social mix. This bill will ensure that a disincentive to work is built into public housing rules. A tenant may choose not to enter the labour force or choose to reduce their working hours in order to remain eligible for public housing.
Tenants have recently brought to my attention that if they want to move to the private rental market, astonishingly the policy of the Department of Housing is not to provide them with a reference. Anyone who has applied for private rental knows that real estate agents perform credit checks and want references from previous landlords. Refusing to give a reference to a tenant wanting to make a move makes no sense at all. It is difficult enough for many former Department of Housing tenants to access the private rental market. The last thing they need is discrimination from the department.
I turn now to proposed section 9A, which relates to extension of terms in standard form of residential tenancy agreements. This section proposes to overturn the current lease provisions with respect to any term of those leases. This is a retrospective measure that will override a contract, that is, the tenant's lease. Laws overturning contracts signed at a past date, where a person relied on the terms within that contract, are not a good idea and the Greens do not support this part of the bill. A private tenant relies on the terms of their lease; a retail tenant relies on the terms of their lease; and social housing tenants should also be able to rely on the terms of their lease.
Proposed section 19A is probably the most unfair provision and is contrary to the user pays principle that the Government appears to advocate. This provision would allow the Department of Housing to impose a charge on all tenants supposedly for water. The charge, however, is not related to water usage where a tenant's premises have no water meter. It is not even related to the actual water bill. So even calling it a water charge is misleading.
Charging for water where premises are not separately metered is currently prohibited in the Residential Tenancies Act, for obvious reasons. People renting in the private market in older style units that are not individually metered do not pay water usage charges. But this has not stopped the Department of Housing from trying to impose a water tax on public housing tenants. The bill proposes that social housing tenants be charged an amount of money ostensibly for water but not based on actual usage of water. This part of the proposed legislation is objectionable for two reasons. It is not a charge for water as is claimed, and it does not adhere to the user pays principle. The amount charged supposedly for water will be based on three things outlined in new section 19A: estimated or actual usage, the income of the tenant, and the rent payable, which is determined by the income of the public housing tenant.
Moreover, tenants such as a pensioner couple would pay something like $3.70 a week supposedly for water, but people who live in similar blocks of units in private rental or in units they own often pay less than this each week for water. So the Department of Housing may be ripping off tenants. The department's pensioner tenants may pay more than the water actually costs. I am amazed that the Opposition has decided not to support the deletion of these provisions from the bill. The Minister's argument in her second reading speech in defence of this part of the bill is illogical as this section of the bill is indefensible. The Minister said:
Charging for water usage will promote responsible water usage and complements existing strategies to install water efficient devices in public housing.
To suggest that this bill will promote responsible water usage is misleading. The key word is "usage", that is, people being charged for what they use. This bill allows tenants without meters to be charged for water that they may or may not use. The Minister explained how the charges will work for those tenants with water meters. She said:
At the outset all tenants will be levied with a water usage contribution charge of 4.1 per cent of their net rent or a little over 1 per cent of their household income. After the few months of operation, tenants with separate meters will have their accounts reconciled with actual usage and their charge will be adjusted.
One wonders why tenants with water meters cannot simply have bills sent to them, perhaps on a monthly basis as most private tenants do. The other objectionable aspect of this part of the bill is that tenants will have to pay up front before they use any water. Most of us are not asked to pay for utilities before we receive the bill. The more one thinks about it, the more ridiculous new section 19A seems. It is an attempt to claw more money out of tenants, dressed up as an environmentally friendly initiative. The Minister said:
If their actual usage has been less, they will receive a credit. If it has been more, they will be advised and their charges will be adjusted upwards, but there will be no outstanding charge.
I am not even sure what that means. Will their charge go up or down? Will the department charge the amount of the actual water bill? What if the amount collected by the department is greater than the actual water bill? Will tenants get a refund? What happens to the interest the department earns by garnishing the tenant's money prior to incurring the expense? The Minister said:
Given the need to levy a charge on tenants without separate meters to maintain equity with metered tenants, this is a fair basis for assessing a watered charge.
The Minister makes a jump in logic by saying that the charge is therefore fair. However, there is a big difference between the two classes of tenants that the department will create—those with water meters and those without. Those with meters get to pay an amount that is based on their actual usage, although again this will vary with their income. Those without meters will have to pay a charge totally unrelated to actual usage yet it may still be based on their income. Most people would feel outraged if Telstra sent them a bill based on the telephone usage of the average householder. Most people would not pay for a utility prior to using it. This bill will impose unfair requirements on one section of the community—social housing tenants.
The Greens hosted a forum for social housing tenants in June 2005. More than 100 people attended. The then Minister for Housing, Joe Tripodi, was invited but did not attend. One of the public housing tenants on the panel asked the crowd to raise their hands if they would be willing to pay for water as long as the charge was based on actual consumption. More than 80 per cent of people raised their hands. Tenants are not opposed to contributing their fair share, but they believe that imposing a bill based on an arbitrary estimation of consumption is manifestly unfair. Many tenants at the forum spoke about their commitment to reducing water usage. Tenants do care.
The department has other choices in relation to water without having to change the law. A public housing tenant can pay for water now where there is a separate water meter. It is perfectly legal if that is provided for in their lease. That is already in the Act. The department can install water meters in all premises over time. We suggest that the department also follow up on its commendable fitting of water saving appliances, rainwater tanks and grey water systems to reduce water usage over time. Tenants who waste water are subject to the same laws as anyone else. Another approach the department could take is to look at water usage for a block of units with no separate meters. Where water usage is much higher than one would expect, the department could then write to or meet with tenants and work together to reduce water use collectively. The Greens would support this kind of co-operative and constructive measure.
New section 19B provides that the department can ask a tenant with an outstanding debt to agree to pay back the debt in instalments plus rent. The Tenants Union and Shelter New South Wales commentary paper drew attention to the Minister's statement that "the debt under the old tenancy agreement would then become a mere civil debt" were it not for this provision, and pointed out that this was incorrect.
At present, a landlord can take action to recover a debt arising under a previous fixed term by taking action under the current fixed term tenancy agreement. The tribunal is there for a reason, however this provision attempts to obviate the necessity for the department to go to the tribunal and therefore to get around the tenant's right to dispute any claim of debt. The Tenants Union and Shelter New South Wales are concerned that this provision might allow a social housing landlord to recover alleged debts that otherwise have not been determined by a court or tribunal to be owing, and also allow the department to recover debts that would otherwise be barred by the Limitation Act 1969.
This bill is a bitter disappointment to many public housing tenants and to key stakeholders working in the sector, including the Tenants Union, Shelter New South Wales and the Council of Social Service of New South Wales. The Greens will move amendments in Committee in an attempt to ameliorate the worst elements of the bill.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.40 p.m.], in reply: The Residential Tenancies Amendment (Social Housing) Bill will implement the important New South Wales Government strategy on reshaping public housing. The strategy—which is aimed at meeting the many sustainable challenges facing public housing by better matching allocation of housing with the need of those most vulnerable—was announced by the former Premier in April this year. The reforms to the principal Act are critical in that they focus squarely on those most in need in our community. As the housing Minister has said in the other place, these reforms will foster a strong sense of tenant responsibility, and efficient and effective public housing provision, and will allow for significant investment in the renewal of public housing stock.
Let me respond to the issue raised by the Opposition. Under these reforms the allocation of housing to those most in need is paramount. At the expiration of the tenants' lease the tenants will need to be assessed and if that need no longer exists the lease will not be renewed. The issue of water was also raised by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. It is important to note that the regime established by this legislation is based on equitable principles and responsibility. People on metered properties who suffer hardship from the amount of water they use—for example, the elderly, the disabled or those on dialysis— may apply for the percentage rate. Unmetered charges track closely to the composition of the household because charges are tied to income, and around 90 per cent of public tenants rely on Centrelink.
In relation to water conservation, the department initiated a retrofit program that is currently available to tenants. The current program with Sydney Water will see a planned take-up of 20,000 dwellings. These reforms will also enable the Government to deliver its $2.7 billion program to build 30,000 additional homes over the next 10 years.
I will now respond to some of the remarks by the Hon. Jon Jenkins on changing characteristics affecting eligibility. The Government draws attention to proposed section 63C, which will allow the criteria for continued eligibility to vary from those used for assessing entry. For example, this could be used to permit tenants with moderate but insecure or fluctuating incomes, such as from casual wages, to remain in public housing. In addition, for those whose need really ceases, the New South Wales Government has and is refining a full affordable housing strategy to help moderate income earners into new housing options. The Government accepts the Hon. Jon Jenkins's suggestion that a review by the Energy and Water Ombudsman be conducted after two years of the water charging regime to evaluate and assess its equitability. I thank the Opposition for supporting this bill in full. It is an important contribution to the future of public housing for our State's most vulnerable. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 22
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Cusack
Mr Donnelly
Ms Fazio
Mrs Forsythe
Miss Gardiner | Ms Griffin
Mr Jenkins
Reverend Nile
Mr Obeid
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce
Ms Robertson | Ms Sharpe
Mr Tsang
Mr West
Dr Wong
Tellers,
Mr Harwin
Mr Primrose |
Noes, 4
 | Mr Breen
Mr Cohen
Tellers,
Ms Hale
Ms Rhiannon | |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.56 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1 to 10 in globo:
No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], lines 10–18. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1 [3], lines 19–35. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 3 Pages 4 and 5, schedule 1 [4] and [5], line 1 on page 4 to line 5 on page 5. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 4 Pages 6–8, schedule 1 [12], line 8 on page 6 to line 30 on page 8. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 5 Page 8, schedule 1 [12], lines 31–38. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
63F Notice of termination may be given on ground that tenant offered alternative social housing premises
A landlord under a social housing tenancy agreement may give notice of termination of the agreement (the existing agreement) to the tenant on the grounds that:
(a) the landlord has offered to enter into a new social housing tenancy agreement with the tenant in respect of alternative premises to the premises the subject of the existing agreement, and
(b) the landlord has determined that the premises the subject of the existing agreement are to be redeveloped or renovated.
No. 6 Page 10, schedule 1 [12], lines 14–18. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 7 Page 12, schedule 1 [15], lines 1–28. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
[15] Section 64 (2A) and (2B)
Insert after section 64 (2):
(2A) The Tribunal, on application under this section by a landlord under a social housing tenancy agreement who has given notice on the grounds referred to in section 63F, is to make an order terminating the agreement (the existing agreement) if it is satisfied:
(a) that the landlord has offered to enter into a new social housing tenancy agreement with the tenant in respect of alternative premises to the premises the subject of the existing agreement, and
(b) that the landlord has determined that the premises the subject of the existing agreement are to be redeveloped or renovated, and
(c) that alternative premises (which may or may not be the same as the alternative premises in connection with which the notice was given) are available for occupation by the tenant, and
(d) that, having considered the circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to do so.
(2B) In deciding whether or not to make an order under subsection (2A), the Tribunal is not to review the landlord's reasons for making the offer concerned.
No. 8 Page 13, schedule 1 [25], lines 27–30. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 9 Page 14, schedule 1 [27], lines 13–25. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 10 Pages 14 and 15, schedule 1 [27], line 31 on page 14 to line 2 on page 15. Omit all words on those lines.
Amendment No. 1 deletes new section 9A, which is headed "Extension of terms in standard form to existing social housing tenancy agreements". The bill allows the imposing of terms in new social housing agreements to all existing tenants. That is, it allows the terms of a contract already in existence to be changed independently of the wishes of one of the parties. The department could vary the terms of the social housing agreement for all tenants whenever it wanted. This is the implication of the bill as it stands. There is no limitation under the schedule to what could be required of tenants, what alterations could be made to the lease. People signing a lease, which is a contract, rely on the terms that they read before they sign as being the foundation of the contract. This provision allows those terms to be varied by the landlord. This would not be acceptable to other tenants—for example, to retail tenants who signed a five-year contract. The landlord could vary the terms of such a contract unilaterally.
This provision is unnecessary and would undermine the terms of the lease. The Tenants Union points out that with the introduction of fixed-term leases the department will have more opportunity to revise the leases as they will be renewed more frequently. At present the lease originally signed remains the lease in force under the continuing agreements that tenants are on. The same goes for tenants in the private rental market. The terms of the lease signed remain in force until a new lease is signed. The department already has stipulations in the Act to deal with antisocial behaviour. For example, the department already has the power to terminate an agreement if a tenant is carrying on an illegal activity or severely damaging premises.
The department is already able to invoke noise and nuisance provisions of the Act to take tenants to the tribunal: the department already has the power to impose antisocial behaviour agreements upon tenants, and it has all its policies, which regulate its operations. There is no justification for this provision, which is quite draconian, The Greens believe, as I have said, that there are already sufficient provisions in the Act to give the department the flexibility it requires without introducing into the Act a provision that would be offensive to all other sections of the community.
Greens amendment No. 2 deletes proposed section 14A, which deals with special provisions relating to social housing tenants. The provisions highlight the erosion of security of tenure for public housing tenants, because they create a series of fixed-term leases. The institution of such fixed-term leases will make it easier for tenants to be evicted—which I believe is one of the objects of the Reshaping Public Housing policy. Under the Residential Tenancy Act as it stands the department already has the power to terminate a lease where a tenant has broken the conditions of that lease. If a tenant seriously damages premises, does not declare income, fails to pay rent or causes noise or nuisance, the Department of Housing can issue a termination notice. If a tenant does not comply with the termination notice, the Department of Housing can then apply to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal for a termination and possession order.
If the tenant continues to refuse to move out, the sheriff is authorised to physically evict that tenant. To its credit, the department often tries many avenues with the tenant before resorting to action in the tribunal—for example, it gives tenants a chance to repay rental arrears—but I have been informed by tenancy workers that when it takes a tenant to the tribunal, the department sometimes loses the case because vital evidence may be lacking and the department's legal team is overworked. Obviously, the department sees this as a way to avoid the need to go before the tribunal.
Greens amendment No. 3 deletes proposed sections 19 and 19A. It will also delete proposed section and 19B, to which I will refer later. These proposed sections allow the Department of Housing to apply a water impost on tenants in respect of houses and units that are not equipped with water meters. This is a de facto rent increase, because the charge can be based on how much rent the tenant pays and how many people make up a particular household. In some instances the charge will far exceed the cost of water that is used—for example, if a tenant is working but lives in unmetered premises. In principle, the Greens support the levying of water charges on tenants and other measures to reduce water usage, but that is not what the Government will achieve with this provision. In fact it may have a counter-productive effect; it may incite people to use more water instead of less because the charge bears no relationship to actual water usage.
This charge does not even conform to the principle of user pays. The department is simply trying to claw back money from tenants, and the Greens believe that this is a particularly inequitable way of doing so. This is probably the most objectionable of any of the provisions of this bill, and tenants have told me on numerous occasions at many public meetings that they do not think it is fair. The Greens amendment will allow the status quo to be maintained, and that is that all tenants, private and public, who signed a lease after 1995 and have water meters installed on their premises can be charged for water usage. Under the current Act, the Department of Housing can legally charge tenants for water usage where there is a meter. This amendment will also delete proposed section 19B—payment of debts by social housing tenants. This provision is unnecessary because the department already has a policy in regard to tenants with debts incurred under a previous Department of Housing tenancy. The provision is superfluous.
Greens amendment No. 4 deletes proposed sections 63B, 63C, 63D and 63E—that is, all the parts of the Act dealing with the operation of the Government's Reshaping Public Housing policy. The department, under its Reshaping Public Housing policy, wants to limit eligibility for public Housing to those with ongoing need, where it defines need as "extreme need". Therefore, tenants on 80 per cent of the median income may not be eligible. Many people working part-time, casually or in low wage jobs would no longer be eligible. Sixty days is not long enough for someone who may have just entered or rejoined the labour force to have to move and adjust to the much more expensive private rental market. Western Australia's Housing Authority allows tenants six months' notice, and that would seem to me to be a far more satisfactory time frame.
Greens amendment No. 5 deals with proposed section 63F, which relates to notice of termination being given on the grounds that the tenant is offered alternative housing premises. It makes clear that where the department needs to redevelop and/or renovate its properties, a tenant must move to alternative social housing premises if requested to do so. The amendment adds a new subsection to limit the application of this provision to these circumstances. It merely circumscribes the conditions whereby a tenant can be required to move.
Greens amendment No. 6 deletes proposed section 63G (8), which relates to procedural fairness taken to have been observed. Last evening members debated the retrospective nature of the Luna Park legislation and this bill seeks to change retrospectively the terms of a lease. In addition, it seems the bill is now deeming that procedural fairness has been observed in a particular case. Surely that is why we have the Consumer, Trainer and Tenancy Tribunal and why we have a court system. It is extraordinary—and again it is very poor legal precedent—that the Government should arbitrarily declare that procedural fairness has been observed. I think that is inherently wrong, regardless of the issue that the bill might be dealing with.
Greens amendment No. 7 amends proposed section 64 (2A) and adds an additional provision to require the tribunal to be satisfied that the reason for termination of a tenancy is for redevelopment or renovation. The amendment deletes section 64 (2B), which is in line with the previous amendments to section 63, and adds a new subparagraph (d) to section 64 (2A) to include the following words, "and, in either case, that it is appropriate to do so in the circumstances of the case". The purpose of this amendment is to allow the tribunal to consider other matters in relation to terminations that fall under proposed sections 63B and 63F. It makes the provisions consistent with section 64 (2) (c) (ii) of the current Act, which gives the tribunal discretion in termination proceedings. The amendment reads the same as that subparagraph. Unchanged, this proposed section would limit the tribunal's discretion and prevent the review of social housing landlord's decisions.
Greens amendment No. 8 deletes proposed section 132 (4). This is the consistent with our previous amendments that would stop the department from being able to vary a tenants contract unilaterally. Greens amendment No. 9 deletes consequential amendments that flow from our proposed deletion of proposed sections 14A, 19A and 19B. Greens amendment No. 10 deletes the application of special provisions relating to terminations of social housing tenancy agreements to social housing tenancy agreements entered into in the past, that is, before the division commences. This is consistent with the other amendments designed to restrict implementation of the Government's reshaping public housing policies.
The Hon. JON JENKINS [5.12 p.m.]: I move:
No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1 [5]. Insert after line 26:
(6) The Energy and Water Ombudsman of NSW is to review any guidelines in force under this section as soon as possible after the period of 2 years from the date on which this section commences.
The most controversial aspect of the bill is the metering of water charges. My amendment seeks to impose upon the Government a duty to allow an independent assessor of the guidelines in force under the section to assess the metering of water charges. The amendment would give the Ombudsman the ability to assess the relative merit of metered contributions versus unmetered contributions. If there is an overt imbalance in the system, the Ombudsman will detect that imbalance and hopefully will feed the information to the Government, which will then adjust its fees accordingly.
The amendment would also allow for the assessment of water-saving devices or strategies that the Government might choose to implement during the test period. It would provide a good assessment of such water-saving devices with regard to both financial savings and resource savings. Because the Department of Housing is responsible for the maintenance of the properties—for example, with regard to the repair of tap washers and maintenance devices—the Ombudsman could also be involved in a system of either incentives or disincentives to maintain the properties, or perhaps an incentive scheme for owners of properties to receive rebates for water-saving devices.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.14 p.m.]: First I wish to speak to the Greens amendments. The Government, with its economic rationalist approach, wants to basically change the tenure regime of leases so the housing system will be like the mental health system: if there is someone on the waiting list who is more worthy than someone already in the system, the person who has the greatest need pushes the other person out. Effectively, there would be a hierarchy of deservedness, if you like. The bill does nothing to fix the problem of the shortage of housing; it merely says that the people in greatest need will get the housing and those who are in need but not as great a need as someone else will be pushed out. Importantly, the effect of the Greens amendments is to prevent the variation in terms, which is all about rationing and is the essence of the bill. The important changes that the amendments make to the bill would allow the people in public housing who have been assessed and are in the system to get a fair go, and that is why I believe they should be supported.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.15 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendments proposed by the Greens but supports the Hon. Jon Jenkins's amendment. With regard to Greens amendment No. 1, the Government opposes the proposed amendment to section 9A. New section 9A is a necessary element of the new tenure regime of leases based on length of need. We must match need with housing, and do it consistently. We cannot have some tenants with lease conditions that are less rigorous than those of others, which would result without new section 9A. That would lead to nothing other than friction, and it would be unfair. For example, if some tenants are on 10-year leases conditions will change over that time. We must move with such changes. A situation where one tenant is allowed under his or her lease to keep a certain breed of companion animals while neighbours are not allowed would result in greater potential friction. The same can be said if different obligations on antisocial behaviour existed under different leases. Section 9A ensures consistency and uniformity, which is an important and necessary goal.
The Government also opposes Greens amendment No. 2, which relates to section 14A, which is a machinery provision that allows a social housing landlord to declare that a lease is subject to another fixed term. This is an important power to ensure that when a tenant's need continues he or she can be offered a new lease. The provision is critical to ensuring housing and that those in need align and can remain that way.
The Government supports the Hon. Jon Jenkins's amendment. It provides a creative and fair suggestion and would ensure that, after a period of two years, a review of the water charging regime is conducted to evaluate its implementation and assess its equitability. The Energy and Water Ombudsman of New South Wales would conduct this review. We believe that a two-year period of implementation prior to the Ombudsman conducting this review is also of importance. Any period less than this will simply not yield sufficient data to make a review worthwhile. A review conducted before this time would amount to a bureaucratic exercise and would not result in a useful outcome for those in public housing.
The Government opposes Greens amendment No. 3, which relates to section 19A. The amendment is based on a lack of appreciation of how water charging results in responsible usage of water. Our proposals to charge for water are based on responsibility and equity. Our proposals rely on usage principles and enshrine a strong user-pays approach. Social housing tenants already pay for other utilities, and water should be treated no differently. This is the norm in the private sector, and water charging will endue responsibility on numerous levels. In addition, the water usage charging regime will be matched by a planned Retrofit Program to install more than 20,000 water-saving devices in public housing. All new developments have such devices.
Importantly, the regime established is equitable. Metered tenants pay for exact usage. If a metered tenant has excessive water needs, he or she can apply to pay as an unmetered tenant—an important safety net. Unmetered tenants pay based on a proportion of their rent, which is, in turn, based on their household income. As more than 90 per cent of public housing tenants receive all or most of their income from Centrelink and these payments rely on household composition, this means the water charge will track onto household composition. This all means actual usage will be the main determinant of charging levels, even for unmetered tenants.
The charge levied on unmetered tenants is also discounted to take account of common area water usage. The rate will be 4.1 per cent of rent, resulting, for example, in a payment of just $2.40 a week for those on a single pension. The Government strongly endorses this regime because it will achieve responsibility and equitable charges. I want the Greens to be aware of this: It would cost more than $80 million to meter every dwelling. If spent this would result in an opportunity cost, in terms of new dwellings, of more than 650 public housing homes. That is hardly in line with the Greens' grand plan to see public housing expand to 15 per cent of all accommodation.
The Government opposes Greens amendment No. 3 in relation to proposed section 19B, Recovery of Debts. Section 19B is an important flexibility section and is required to ensure that the payment of prior tenancy debts proceeds under the new regime. There are likely to be cases where a person at the end of his or her fixed-term tenancy is in arrears but is making appropriate progress in paying them off. If this tenant is still eligible for public housing he or she will be granted a new fixed-term lease. The debt under the old tenancy agreement would then become a mere civil debt, which would be extremely difficult to recoup.
As the financial viability of an important resource such as public housing relies on fair contributions by both government and those utilising the system, it is important for government to be able to fairly recover costs from the consumers. For this reason, proposed section 19B would provide for financial obligations to continue from one tenancy to another, provided that the tenant remains the same. This means that debts from one fixed-term tenancy could be carried over to a new fixed-term tenancy. This is important to ensure that tenants who are in arrears are obliged to pay back those arrears whilst minimising the threat of jeopardising their opportunity to receive a new fixed-term tenancy.
The Government opposes Greens amendment No. 4 in relation to proposed section 63B as it is based on a desire to continue the old, unsustainable foundations of public housing. It is based on life tenure. If it were accepted, the entire tenure of the Reshaping Public Housing strategy would be undermined. This bill is about housing those in need. Honourable members of the Greens have frequently referred in their contributions to those who are most in need, that is people suffering from a mental illness, those with a disability, the elderly, young homeless people and young families. Proposed section 63B operates to focus on those in need. If a social housing tenant has a need they will be housed. If that need continues they will continue to be housed.
The review process established by section 63B ensures a thorough assessment of need, and where that review results in a determination that the need for housing has passed, the social housing tenancy agreement will be terminated. If the need persists, the agreement is renewed. This review will occur only in the last six months of the lease, ensuring stability for the tenant. Proposed section 63D establishes a clear, no-cost and comprehensive appeal mechanism against any termination determination. Reasons for termination must be supplied in writing to the tenant, who has a right to appeal to local levels of the Department of Housing. The Minister stated in the other place that an additional appeal will also lie to the Housing Appeals Committee. At present, when the Housing Appeals Committee opposes a Department of Housing decision, in more than 95 per cent of such cases the department follows the committee's decision and overturns its own decision. This is an important tenant protection that should be strongly supported. It is the duty of a responsible government to focus on those in serious need of public housing. As the current legislation does not allow for social housing landlords to ask those no longer in need to move on following the review of a completed fixed-term tenancy, it is the Government's duty to respond to this.
The Government also opposes Greens amendment No. 4 in relation to proposed section 63C, Eligibility Criteria. That section of the bill provides a process for the assessment of the eligibility of a tenant under a social housing tenancy agreement to continue residing in the social housing premises concerned. The criteria for eligibility will be established by guidelines approved by the Minister for Housing. These criteria will be based squarely on need. The majority of social housing tenants have numerous cost-cutting and complex needs. The current regime does not factor this in, and proposed section 63C achieves this important reform. Furthermore, section 63C will allow the criteria for continued eligibility to vary from the criteria used for assessing entry. For example, this could be used to permit tenants with a moderate but secure income, say from casual wages, to remain in public housing for a further period while they become more established. The eligibility assessment may occur only in the last six months of a fixed-term tenancy.
Let us be clear, this bill contains in other areas several new protective provisions and creates new tenant rights that currently do not exist. Under proposed section 47A a social housing tenant will be able to apply for an order that rent is excessive. The Greens and others have highlighted the fact that the social housing sector faces large sustainability challenges. I draw attention to the reshaping reforms that are aimed squarely at the concerns expressed about ongoing sustainability. Proposed section 63C is a critical aspect of sustainability and deserves the support of the House.
The Government opposes Greens amendment No. 4 in relation to proposed section 63D, Review of Termination. Where need is assessed as having passed, a public housing tenancy will be terminated. Proposed section 63D establishes important and credible mechanisms in conjunction with ministerial commitments that make that section a sound tenant appeal and protection clause. Reasons for termination must be supplied in writing to the tenant and they have a right to be heard with appeals to local levels of the Department of Housing. The Minister stated in the other place that an additional appeal will also lie to the Housing Appeals Committee. At present, where the Housing Appeals Committee opposes a Department of Housing decision, in more than 95 per cent of such cases the department follows the committee's decision and overturns its own. This is an important tenant protection that should be strongly supported.
Similarly, the Government opposes the other part of Greens amendment No. 4 in relation to proposed section 63E, which establishes a fair and timely appeal mechanism. Sixty days or two months is a substantial appeal time frame. Any longer period would begin to undermine the regime of making sure that need can be matched to housing supply. Two 30-day periods show how such issues are dealt with in the private housing sector—another important step in creating a sense of responsibility in social housing. At the same time I draw the attention of the House to proposed section 132, which removes the current exemption to the 60 days notice for market rent increases in public housing. This new protective clause, in support of fair treatment of Department of Housing tenants, is also based on a similar time frame. I commend proposed section 63E to the Committee.
The Government opposes Greens amendments Nos 5 and 6 relating to proposed sections 63F and 63G. As many honourable members will be aware, a number of our public housing estates require sustained attention or upgrading. In some cases substantial rebuilding is required to allow these upgrades to occur, and to do so the dwellings need to be vacated. Without amendment, the significant improvement of an entire estate could be jeopardised by a handful of tenants who refuse to vacate their premises, even after reasonable alternatives have been offered, and insist on their rights under a long fixed-term tenancy agreement. Proposed sections 63F and 63G provide a process that allows a landlord, under a social housing tenancy agreement, to give notice of termination of the agreement after offering the tenant a new tenancy agreement in respect of alternative premises.
This would allow the department to relocate a tenant to alternative accommodation if the premises are no longer suitable or are required for redevelopment or for some other reason. The Department of Housing would continue its current practice of seeking to relocate by negotiation, but this power is essential to ensure that important renewals are not delayed unnecessarily, which is of benefit to all tenants of public housing. These sections also address underoccupancy, a problem that can prevent allocation of suitably sized homes to struggling families. This amendment allows the department to insist that the smaller household move to a smaller home—even though it may have a long-term tenancy agreement for that property—to ensure that a family that requires the larger property is able to access it.
Any terminations under this ground would also be subject to procedural fairness requirements and ministerial guidelines. Again, under these guidelines, a second-tier appeal would be to the Housing Appeals Committee, further ensuring a useful and credible oversight function. Clearly, this is an equity-based program, allowing public housing to reach those most in need in a better and targeted manner. In addition, these sections will also provide a clear legislative basis for relocation as a measure for managing serious neighbourhood disputes, such as were experienced on the Gordon estate in west Dubbo, another very important step that I commend in the strongest terms. Finally, the Government opposes Greens amendment No. 7, which relates to proposed section 64. This provision gives the Consumer, Trade and Tenancy Tribunal a strong role in the review process established under the bill.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.34 p.m.]: I will not respond to the arguments put forward by the Hon. Henry Tsang on behalf of the Government. I believe the reasons for moving the various amendments have been well and truly canvassed in the bulk of my speech and also in my contribution addressing specific amendments. However, I am obliged to respond to what I am sure the Hon. Henry Tsang saw as the king hit. There is no doubt that the most contentious aspect of this bill is the proposal to impose a water charge on public housing tenants occupying houses that are not metered.
The Hon. Henry Tsang said that this proposal would cost $80 million and one could not possibly consider spending that amount of money on these dwellings. I find that a bit rich coming from a Government that proposes to spend $2 billion on a desalination plant that will not discourage the use of water and will incur enormous operating costs. Indeed, it will only contribute to a worsening of greenhouse gas emissions, which are bringing about water shortages in the first place. This Government has $2 billion to waste on a desalinisation plant, which virtually no-one in the community finds acceptable, yet the Hon. Henry Tsang finds the prospect of spending $80 million on installing meters impossible and unacceptable, even though it would help to discourage profligate water use and allow tenants to see that they have been charged an amount that is fair, appropriate, transparent and obvious. It would put them on a par with tenants in every other household dwelling in this country.
That is typical of the Government's attitude. It has the opportunity to solve the problem in the longer term, but instead it scratches around in a mean-minded, socially regressive manner to produce a bill that will compound the problems facing our society. This so-called water charge is not a charge for water usage, nor does it seek to discourage water usage; it is simply a rent hike. The Government has tried to dress it up and gloss over the fact that it is a charge for water usage when there is no relationship between the amount of water that will be used and the price the tenants will pay. The only relationship will be between income and the water charge.
The Greens wish to eliminate this provision because, if the Government were to spend $80 million on installing water meters, the cost would be spread over time and would serve the object that supposedly underlies this legislation, that is, it will allow tenants to monitor their water use and act appropriately. Moreover, the presence of water meters will allow the Government to actually recoup the costs of water used by tenants because the meters will demonstrably prove that tenants are paying for the amount of water they use. As it stands, no-one knows whether they are paying more or less than they would be obliged to pay if the water was metered. The installation of meters is an efficient, rational way to proceed. To put forward the trumped-up argument that it would cost $80 million merely highlights the Government's irrationality on these amendments and on so much of this bill.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [5.38 p.m.]: The Opposition puts on record its position with respect to Outdoor Recreation Party amendment No. 1, which relates to the Energy and Water Ombudsman of New South Wales reviewing any guidelines in force under this section as soon as possible after the period of two years from the date on which the section commences. I note that the shadow Minister in the other place, when speaking to the bill yesterday, put that suggestion to the Minister, so obviously the Opposition supports that amendment. We requested a 12-month period, but two years is better than nothing.
I share the concern of Ms Sylvia Hale that by not having a meter in every home there is a lack of transparency. However, the Government's estimate of $80 million to put a meter in every public housing property is a high price to pay, especially if, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that money could be used to build about 650 houses. I acknowledge the Government's hypocritical stance in terms of a desalination plant and the $2 billion cost to bottle electricity and burned coal. It is outrageous planning and an outrageous expenditure of public moneys when we are not in a position to be throwing money around, left, right and centre.
We realise that only so much money is available; we simply cannot go down to the bottom of the garden and pick up as much money as we want. On that basis, we support a review by the Energy and Water Ombudsman as per the Outdoor Recreation Party amendment. We acknowledge that putting meters in every public housing property in New South Wales would be extremely expensive. However, it is reasonable that Department of Housing tenants have a water charge that is more reflective of their water use, although it may not be their exact usage. It would give them a basis from which to work.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.41 p.m.]: I am amazed by the Greens remarks. I am pleased that this country and this State will never be run by the Greens, because they would rather spend $80 million on installing water meters than provide 650 homes for those most in need. The proposal is hardly progressive. The Government would rather deliver 650 new homes for those in need in our society. Obviously, water charges will be based on Centrelink's requirements in terms of household composition. The composition of a household will determine the water usage level. Centrelink links income to water usage, which is a fair system. I remind the Greens that water meters will be installed in all new developments. I commend the Government's recommendation to the Committee.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.42 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Outdoor Recreation Party amendment for the review process. We believe that it is a good amendment. We do not support the Greens amendments. We agree with the Government that it is much better to use the $80 million on housing than on installing meters, when there is a formula in place that will give, as far as is humanly possible, a fair water charge for each public housing tenant.
Greens Amendments Nos 1 to 10 negatived.
Outdoor Recreation Party amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.44 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 11 to 14 in globo:
No. 11 Page 16, schedule 2.1, lines 3–8. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 12 Page 16, schedule 2.2, lines 9–15. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 13 Page 16, schedule 2.3, lines 16–21. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 14 Page 16, schedule 2.4, lines 22–25. Omit all words on those lines.
The object of these amendments is to delete the proposed changes to the objects of the Aboriginal Housing Act 1998 and the Housing Act 2001. If the proposed changes in the bill proceed, they will have the effect of further restricting the provision of social housing as an entitlement under article 11 of the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which deals with access to housing. According to the bill, the revised object of these two Acts will be to ensure that the available supply of housing under the Acts is shared equitably by those most in need. That sounds perfectly fine on the surface. However, if one thinks about it, it is asking those most in need to share a scarce resource among themselves, which inevitably means that some people will miss out.
The bill as it stands takes us one step further away from the language of entitlement or the language of right to housing. Therefore, the Greens oppose these changes to the objects of the two Acts. Once upon a time the Labor Party had a prospect of providing social justice to many in the community. It is perfectly obvious from this bill, and indeed from other bills that have come before the Parliament, that the Labor Party has abysmally abandoned that objective, and in so doing has alienated itself from its core source of support that has sustained it for so long. If it wants to become the Liberal Party it should say so unashamedly, rather than pretend to have any attachment whatever to the original ideas that inspired so many people in the labour movement.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.46 p.m.]: The Government rejects Greens amendments Nos 11 to 14. The provisions bring the Aboriginal Housing Office [AHO] and the Housing Act into line with this bill. The AHO board supports these provisions, which will result in equity and need being included across additional sectors of social housing. The AHO has discussed these measures and supports them. Again, the Greens lack understanding of sustainable housing.
Amendments negatived.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:12 : Update this page