Homes Tasmania Bill 2022
Ms WEBB – Mr President, I rise to speak on the Homes Tasmania bill, and there are certainly many things to be said. A great deal of work has already been spoken about regarding this bill by the Government in the media, in correspondence to us, in ministerial statements, in the other place, here in the second reading speech yesterday and yet, all those words have delivered a remarkable lack of clarity, very little specific detail and much obfuscation.
‘Word salad’ is how I charitably describe a lot of it. Because we have been served a salad, instead of a genuine, specific and rational argument for the model presented in the bill, it has been quite a task for us to assess it, which is a shame. It is helpful to have good, transparent policy process, rationally made argument with clear, specific detail when you bring something to this place and ask us to assess it and support it.
I would like to provide my take on this. I will try to be as clear and rational as possible on the bill we have before us. To begin, we can probably establish a few things we are all likely to agree on. The minister has been keen to point to things we could agree on. The first one is we know things are bad in Tasmania in relation to housing affordability and housing insecurity. We all heard the stats. We know there are close to 4500 households waiting for social housing. It is up from just a year ago. We know that. The time for priority applicants to be housed is at a shocking level – close to 90 weeks. Unbelievable.
We know 1 in 82 Tasmanians receive homelessness services. That is a figure higher than the national average, quite a bit higher. We know 46 people a day are turned away from specialist homelessness services in Tasmania. That does not sound as much when you say 46 a day in a way, but it is 16 800, or just shy of that turned away in a year. That is a lot of turn aways in this small state.
In Tasmania, the number of households that rent is increasing. It is up 11 per cent in the census data from 2016 to 2021. A higher proportion of us is renting. It is now close to 58 000 households in the state who are renters and we know the private rental market has catastrophically failed. Private rental vacancy rates are catastrophically low. It is the only word I can use to describe it. It is well under one per cent, 0.6 per cent was the latest figure. Burnie has a shocking figure of 0.2 per cent. Beyond market failure, far beyond.
A big driver of homelessness that we are currently seeing is people experiencing rent hikes. Then, not being able to afford those rent hikes because they are in the percentage of 10‑20 per cent more at a time on their rent. That is because the only constrain we put on rent increases in this state – we are very backward in this respect – is market equivalence, which basically equals a race to the top when it comes to what you can charge for rent and how quickly you can keep increasing it.
More people renting, catastrophic failure in the rental market driving homelessness. On top of the other things that are driving homelessness in this state. Over the term of this Liberal government across the eight years, things have become much worse. Not all of these things are this Government’s responsibility, absolutely not. There is a broader context around this. There are federal issues and federal leaders around this. However, this is the Government at a state level that has had the responsibility for managing for us and it is much worse.
It is well established that we know things are bad, we can all agree on that in relation to housing affordability and in relation to homelessness. We heard that reinforced yesterday in the briefings we had from community service providers who are at the front line of the housing emergency. I hear it from my conversations with people in that sector all the time.
Essentially, what they were able to express is they are desperate to have more homes to put more people in, which brings us to the second thing we could all agree on. We know we want to build more public and social housing as quickly as possible in this state. After eight years of virtual standstill on public and social housing, the Government has made ambitious commitments to a building program over the next decade to deliver 10 000 homes through building or acquiring. We are not necessarily talking about 10 000 additional to our housing stock totally, but building or acquiring 10 000 public and social housing homes.
Pleasingly, the federal government has also indicated an intention to invest more and provide funding mechanisms for building more public and social housing. Excellent. We need shared effort across levels of government.
We have a keen and capable community housing sector here, with not-for-profit community housing developers and providers already charging ahead with their own building programs. They have been a real success story in this state in recent years delivering for our state on the social housing side.
However, we have recognised constraints on building things quickly. The constraints that are most regularly identified – as we are all quite familiar with and we can all agree on ‑ are workforce limitations, planning system constraints, land availability challenges. These are consistently identified as the barriers to getting more houses quickly.
To recap, we know things are bad on the housing affordability and insecurity front. We know we need to urgently build more but there are constraints.
A third thing we can all pretty safely agree on is that we have a sector of housing and homelessness service providers that are committed, capable and keen for innovation. A whole suite of services and programs are provided in this state in the area of housing and homelessness, with a skilled workforce and a demonstrated history of developing innovative, evidence-based new approaches to achieve better outcomes for Tasmanians.
We only have to look at examples. Let us go back to the Common Ground initiative, when it was first brought to this state more recently. We have Youth Foyer models being used by Anglicare for supported accommodation for young people from 16 to 25. For a number of a years now we have been developing that side of things. We have Colony 47 adopting exciting approaches like Advantaged Thinking approaches to underpin their work. Looking at things like their Housing and Accommodation Support Initiative (HASI) that they brought in from a model from New South Wales, which provides integrated housing and mental health supports. The list could go on in that sector. They are skilled. They are capable. They are keen to innovate and they are driving that innovation as best they can within the constraints that they operate in.
So innovation in that sector and development and rolling out better innovation of even more effective services are constrained. They are constrained by a lack of effective government leadership and planning, stalled reforms processes and, crucially, a lack of adequate, secure, operational funding from the state government in an ongoing way. An example of that, to provide a small one: Anglicare has operated supported accommodation for young people across this state for many years, and it is based on that Youth Foyer model, an excellent model. I could be wrong and I am open to being corrected, but I do not believe that those facilities under that model here in this state have ever been provided with a level of funding that allows for the full implementation of the model. So they are not able to be accredited to that excellent model, that internationally-recognised excellent model, because the state government has always undersold them, sold them short, on operational funding to achieve the full model.
Another example, the Housing Connect model. In terms of innovative and effective processes, the Housing Connect model is a great one. One front door to a whole suite of services delivered through a partnership of five organisations statewide, an excellent initiative at the time. It has stalled, however, because it has been in a process of review and reform for some time. It has not landed anywhere yet, and we keep waiting. That is the sense of ‘stalled‑ness’ that the sector is feeling at the moment. They are desperate for that to change.
To recap, we know things are bad in relation to housing affordability and insecurity. We know we need to urgently build more public and social housing, but there are constraints. We know we have a sector of skilled service providers keen to innovate but also in some senses constrained and stalled. Three things, I think, we can straightforwardly agree on.
Questions that occur to me then, are thus: firstly, does the bill and the model in it fix those things? My short answer is, largely, no. It does not address the factors driving housing unaffordability and skyrocketing rents. We would not expect it to address a whole raft of those factors. They are well beyond it, but it is not going to fix that, it is not a magic wand for it. The key reason it does not do that within the scope of what it does cover is it cannot fix those things stopping us building things quickly. It cannot necessarily fix workforce limitations, planning system constraints. You can look at the area of land availability but quite frankly, we already have mechanisms it largely replicates to identify and free up Crown land and other land we have with housing supply order processes in place. We have a lot of those mechanisms there.
Mr Valentine – With its problems.
Ms WEBB – Indeed, with its problems. Not to say we would not want to fix and improve what is there, I will come to that in a minute. It is not a choice between doing nothing or doing this. The bill does not specifically point to any different way of working with the community services sector in regard to funding, reforms or models of working that is not available now and could not be done under the situation we have.
In terms of thinking of those things we can agree on, is this bill, and this model it contains, the best way to fix those things? My short answer to that is I do not know. Mr President, I do not know if this is the best way to partly fix some of those things. It has not been demonstrated why our current challenges cannot be addressed within the framework of the current system, but with changes and improvements made. It is interesting because when I looked through submissions made on the draft bill, the Housing Choices Tasmania submission, noting the draft bill and I will quote:
… does not appear to be any significant change to what the state housing jurisdiction is already able to do.
Others have made this point too, it is still unclear the extent of what is delivered that is different through this model, except for maybe one key thing which we will come to. The case has not been made why this change is the best indicated way forward. We have not seen any credible policy development process in which options and solutions were explored and tested against each other.
Another important question of those three things we could agree on is, other than when it would work and whether it is the best option, what other impacts might this bill and the model in it have that would impact on the state and on the citizens of our state? I do not think we know the answer to that question clearly enough. There are a lot of unanswered questions regarding what eventual impact this may have, what secondary impacts it may have, what unintended consequences it may have.
As we are all aware, it is the unintended consequences, the secondary impacts, the collateral damage sometimes that are often overlooked and pushed past in a rush to implement a shiny, new thing. My radar is also up in this instance in relation, not so much to the unintended consequences, but whether they are maybe covertly intended consequences and what they may be.
Call me suspicious, it is fair to say we need to be thinking about what agendas are being run here. We are talking here about the fundamental basis on which the state government provides public and social housing to support its citizens’ right to housing. Talking about a very large state asset base and how it has managed, developed, disposed of and prioritised. Ideaological agendas at play here could be setting us on a course of fundamentally undermining a state government role and public assets.
That is something that concerns me. I do not feel that has been sufficiently and transparently examined that we can have confidence in the degree to which there are or are not ideological agendas at play here, covert, intended consequences.
Where does that leave us? Having shared some of that thinking that sits behind my approach here to this bill, I would like to mention a few of the things in relation to the bill in more detail and how that is also playing on my mind. I cannot help but reflect if you have identified that current practice is not working and there is a need to change, you are faced with two choices: do you fix the thing you have, or do you create something new? In this case, it seems the Government has chosen in a fundamental way not to fix what we have, but to discard it and create something new. However, we have not seen that decision-making play out as a transparent and evidence‑based process. What specifically is the problem or problems that we are trying to solve here? Where has that been consulted on, clearly identified, and quantified? Consultation only occurred on this new model after the bill was drafted, well after the decision was made and announced back in March.
Mr President, as I alluded to in an aside to the member for Hobart a moment ago, there was never a binary choice for us, here. We should not be pushed to think that there was. It should never have been a situation where we were somehow made to feel that the choice was between doing nothing and staying exactly as we are, or doing this model in this bill. Yet, from many stakeholders that we talk to, and some we heard from in briefings, there is a sense that they have. In light of that, they offer optimistic and somewhat puzzled support for this bill where they are desperate to see improvement. They are desperate to get more housing built as quickly as possible. They know what we have now is not working. They want change from their stalled situations and they want to see something happen. So they say, ‘this is something happening, perhaps it might work. We could give it a try’. I think that is very disappointing, because I do not think that points to an appropriate process to explore and define and arrive at the best way forward, when we are just presented with this way forward.
It is interesting to contemplate and ask, because it is certainly not clear, whose idea was this? How was this option identified as the most appropriate solution to the specific problems that we have? It was announced quite out of the blue. Where did it come from? Who was the decision-maker? When did that decision happen, at the outset?
Let us remind ourselves about that. The announcement of the new housing authority. Out of the blue in March 2022, in then-premier, Mr Gutwein’s Premier’s Address in parliament, we heard that the Department of Communities was to be summarily dismantled. No warning. No consultation. Perhaps not even the head of the department knew that it was going to happen until just before the announcement that it would be pulled apart this year, and shut down. A department that was a mere six years old, that was formed in 2016 by this Liberal government, with the stated intention at that time to bring together services with natural alignments to reduce silos. I believe that was a very explicit intention of that department. Then out of the blue in 2022, six year later, we are getting rid of it. The reason given for that – wait for it – was ‘to better align services and to reduce silos’. Blow me down, Mr President. This verges on the Orwellian sometimes, when we get into this territory.
Of course, as part of the scrapping of the Department of Communities, the current Housing Tasmania element of the department, perhaps ironically, was facing homelessness. What to do with Housing Tasmania? The Government’s answer, clearly, was to package it up as an authority and give it a skills-based board to run. No consultation. No transparent process. No involvement, to my knowledge, of staff or stakeholders until well after that decision was made.
To me, this looks like a government that has given up on its own ability to develop and implement policy and to manage functional relationships with stakeholders. Not only given up on itself, but also perhaps, most sadly, has lost faith in the public service to develop and implement policy and manage functional relationships with stakeholders. Giving up and handing it over on the assumption that a more private sector approach will automatically be better. Giving core state Government responsibilities and functions to a small group, who are not elected, and are not public servants.
Maybe the core issue is that this state government cannot maintain functional relationships with departments and the public service. Maybe that is why it is so ready to dismantle and discard them, and instead set up something approximating their functions in a separate entity entirely.
I am hearing echoes here of what we saw last year with TasTAFE. It makes me wonder, what is next? From the member for Elwick’s contribution I am not the only one. What other core responsibilities of state government will the Government deem to be dysfunctional and want to break up with? Which parts of our health system, which parts of our education system could be hived off? It is a concern, it begs the question, the way that this has been done, the way it has been decided on and presented, begs the question.
I will spend some time now touching on a couple of particular aspects of the bill, and some of the rhetoric and raise a few questions, knowing that I will have plenty more in the Committee stage so I will not be veering into that territory here. It goes to my assessment of the bill.
The second reading speech says:
The authority will be responsible for delivering improved housing services.
How? In what ways will housing services be improved under this model or by this bill? What will be different? How are the improvements not able to be delivered under the current model? What is it about Homes Tasmania as iterated in this bill that makes these improvements possible, that would not be possible now? I have heard the minister assert that the model will deliver ‘improved partnerships’ and ‘greater collaboration’. How, specifically? How?
Clearly, under the current model we have partnerships, and we have collaboration; there is always room for improvement. Why cannot it happen under this model? What is special about the model proposed in this bill that means we can have improvements and extensions that are not available now? There is one area, perhaps, we will come to it.
Liveable communities, the second reading speech also talks about, ‘the broader role the authority will play in ensuring the wellbeing of those in need of housing and homelessness services as well as in building livable communities’. That is a lot to unpack. Again, in what way specifically will Homes Tasmania have a broader role in ensuring the wellbeing of those in need of housing and homelessness services, than the entity that is within the Department of Communities Tasmania right now? How will that be different?
There is nothing unique about this model that will deliver that that could not be delivered under the current model, improved and done differently within the current model. In what way specifically – thinking about those liveable communities – will Homes Tasmania have a broader role in building liveable communities than we have and see in the system now? That is an interesting one. That seems to imply that there will be some insertion into the planning system, it seems to imply that there will be a way to facilitate other aspects of community building, but I do not see that necessarily reflected in the bill.
It begs the question: surely that is what we do now in a collaborative way, or we could potentially be doing in a collaborative way, across a range of areas within government who all work and work into the space of building livable communities, not just the state government but different levels of government, particularly local government in that space too?
Another claim made in the second reading speech is that the bill establishes a new framework, the right framework to futureproof housing for many decades to come. It also says that we need to be innovative, agile and responsive, and we need to change the way we have been doing things to be more contemporary to prepare for the next decade and beyond. It is very hard not to feel that these are just buzzwords and catchphrases plucked out of the air. ‘Futureproof’, throw that in, sounds great. ‘Agile’, gosh, I think governments at all levels should be banned from using that word ever again. How ridiculous. ‘More contemporary’, sounds great, very impressive to say that we are going to be ‘more contemporary’.
However, it is very hard to feel that beyond grabbing a few buzzwords and catchphrases to throw in, there is literally no explanation from the Government as to how the new arrangements in this model are able to be more agile, innovative and responsive, nor how they are more contemporary. Deciding to change something with no demonstrated evidence base, no apparent consultation into the decision-making – only post-decision making – does not make it contemporary. That is not responsive; it is reactive. Again, according to the second reading speech, we must change how we have done things in the past to allow more innovation, more efficiency and faster developments to get houses out of the ground and provide homes to people who need them as quickly as possible. Agreed.
What have been the main barriers? We have already identified that the main barriers holding up getting houses out of the ground are largely not related to matters in this bill. In their submissions, community housing providers identified a range of areas of reform that they saw as key to speeding up the process for getting houses out of the ground. Most of those related to planning systems. Some even had some out-there suggestions like compulsory acquisition expansion, things like that, which is quite an interesting discussion for another day.
However, none of the things that were suggested by those community housing providers related to matters in this bill, in terms of getting things out of the ground quicker, and making houses available more promptly for the Tasmanian people. This bill is not fixing that. I agree with the minister that we must change how we have done things in the past, to allow for more innovation. Is this the only way we can do it? No. Can we have a conversation about better ways to do it? Absolutely.
It is interesting to have read through some of the materials, including the second reading speech, and hear it in the Chamber, and to hear about the archaic Homes Act. The Government mentioned structural difficulties in the operation of the Homes Act and suggests that attempts to modernise old laws over time can overcomplicate and even render many of their provisions unworkable. In fact, if we were to continue to rely on the Homes Act, apparently there will continue to be many constraints on the provision of more homes for Tasmanians, specially more vulnerable members of the community. No examples that were provided about that. There was no clarity on what will be done under the new model that could not be done on the existing act; to borrow, of course, and we will come to that.
Many aspects of the Homes Act have been carried forward directly into this bill. We know that legislation needs to be updated and changes need to be made. We need to add or remove things to either bring them up to date, or to move with a new approach or a new way of working. We have done a great deal of that with this bill, with the current Homes Act. However, large parts of this bill are literally the Homes Act brought forward.
At times, things have been reformatted and redrafted to probably a more contemporary drafting style, but there are literally swathes of that ‘archaic’ Homes Act in this bill. There is obviously no problem updating the ‘archaic’ Homes Act. We could have done it, and it did not mean we did have to put a new model in; but, there you go.
An outdated act, in need of review and updating, does not justify a fundamental change of model. You cannot equate those two things. You cannot equate a need to update an act to a switch to an entirely new model. The complete removal of the central responsibility of state government from the public service of providing public and social housing, and to vest it into and untested and unproven separate entity is not the only outcome from deciding we have to update an act.
Mr President, the second reading speech also says this bill:
will ensure Tasmania has the most integrated, whole of system approach to developing land, building, procuring, maintaining, modifying and disposing of homes that may have past the used-by date.
Again, there are more questions about that, because they are just words on a page if we have not had a demonstration of how it is more integrated. We have Housing Tasmania sitting within the Department of Communities Tasmania. It does not get much more integrated than that, with a whole range of services that sit around them.
We have government being responsible for the Housing services. We also have government in other areas responsible for planning, responsible for infrastructure. We have that sitting within the state government, and we should be able to think of our state government as being integrated. I know the reality is that often it is not; but it does not necessarily mean that it is going to be more integrated by plucking a piece out and giving responsibility to an unelected non-public service board. In relation to this act we have seen a lot of nonsensical, opaque rhetoric, virtually no clear explanation or rationale provided, multitudes of questions with no clear answers given and for me, a distinct sense an agenda may well be being pursued.
My radar is most acute in terms of any agenda around public and social housing. Public and social housing are not mentioned in the bill, they are not descriptors we use in legislation, but it does prompt us to ask where are they in all this? Public housing is not even mentioned in the second reading speech which mentions increasing the supply of social and affordable housing in the first paragraph, thereafter only the first had affordable housing.
What is the Government’s definition of affordable housing when they are using it in this context? Although affordable housing is mentioned in the bill, it is not defined and we will hear in relation to that, ‘oh, it is because the definition shifts and changed over time and context’. Sure, that is the problem, right? We know the definition shifts and changed, therefore it gives you a lot of leeway if you stop talking about public and social housing and start talking about affordable housing, it gives you a hell of a lot of leeway in terms of where you can go with that.
As an example, in various discussions on this bill and in briefings, we had raised some conversation on Huntingfield developments. There is a large Huntingfield development we considered in this place because it came through the housing supply land order process, somewhat controversially, I felt, as per my attempted disallowance. There was a previous small parcel in Huntingfield released prior to that and there was an intention that all 40 blocks were were going to be affordable housing. Do you know how many of those resulted in affordable housing? Zero.
It is all very well to have intentions, to have statements, to use the words ‘affordable housing’, but it gives you a hell of a lot of leeway. Much as we continue to hear about the other massive development going into Huntingfield, the intention that 10-15 per cent is going to be social and affordable housing, ah, there we go.
Affordable to who, exactly? How much of that will be preserved genuinely for what we would think of as the purpose for social housing and the cohorts that need it. Well, it is yet to be seen that fast track we did on the development in September 2019 an any buildings there yet? Some would say that is a reason for this we need to get things out of the ground fast, we need it to happen faster, who knows? Maybe it could have happened faster if this had been in place.
The case has not been made and there is plenty to point to with what is happening right now and the need for improvement. There is plenty, but it does not mean this is our only option. I would like to understand the Government’s current definition and understanding of affordable housing. It is using the term right now, in the bill and in the second reading speech.
Sure, the caveat being that it may change, but right now, what is it? What will the status of public and social housing become if this new model comes to pass? I do wonder about the extent to which public and social housing will maintain prominence as a priority for Homes Tasmania, as iterated in this bill.
It is not clear enough what that trajectory is and there has not been enough reassurance given in any of the commentary on this bill. It certainly concerns me that we may be on a trajectory with this bill where more and more state assets – public and social housing – are sold off or given to private ownership or possibly turned over to other purposes. We know it can be really problematic, it can really get up people’s noses if public land is given for a particular purpose to an institution and then the institution may decide to change the purpose of that down the track. That is something that we know the community can get fussed about. If public and social housing assets are to become diminished, decreased, used for other purposes, given away, that is something that I think is less able to be influenced and accountable under this model.
I note that appears to be a concern that was shared by a number of stakeholders in submissions on the bill. We know that there were various recommendations made in those submissions about a power to safeguard public assets and ensure they remained in use for public good and relieving housing stress in our community. Perhaps the Government would like to say something more on the record about how they have addressed those concerns raised and what can they can point to to provide more reassurance about that so we have that on the record.
Others have talked about the financial side of this bill, and the entity that it puts in place, others who are better equipped to deal with it than I am. My understanding is that this is virtually the only area that is different when it comes to the model in this bill compared to what is possible now. Not what is now, because we know it is not operating necessarily as well as it could, and doing all the things that we would like. However, in terms of model versus model, what we have now and its potential compared to what we have proposed under this bill. The only real difference seems to be that it can leverage borrowings on the asset base.
I still do not understand why we cannot do that to some extent now. I also wonder what is the expectation in regard to any borrowings that Homes Tasmania may undertake? We have certainly been very familiar in this state with being saddled by housing debt, until very recently, in fact. We know exactly what impact it has when we have to devote significant amounts of funding to loan repayments instead of using it to provide homes and services. I am concerned, will we end up in a situation where Homes Tasmania – if it comes to pass – will be using properties that are now government and public social housing assets and potentially racking up debts, and also then potentially having to use those assets or elements of those assets commercially to maximise rental income to service debts? Then we see public assets being used in that way rather than the core purpose of providing housing and services to people in need.
Mr President, the second reading speech does indicate an area of focus for the Housing Tasmania authority, not a new one. It says:
This legislation creates a role for Homes Tasmania in broader housing considerations, beyond what the current department has historically held. This means it can consider our community housing needs and how our vulnerable are supported within this. It also means it can play a role in key worker accommodation and how that fits within the broader housing need, particularly in regional areas or areas of high demand.
It is interesting that it says that, and it describes it as being beyond what the current department has historically held. Actually, that element of the bill is carried forward from the Homes Act that we currently have, I think it is 15A in the Homes Act that we have now that has been carried over into this bill in section 47. We have the ability to look at things like key worker accommodation, we have the ability to look at – I think as it is stated in there – statutory entities, local governments, that sort of thing, and industry. I am interested as to why this has been framed up as something new, when on my reading it looks like it is something that is already in existence. I am not aware that it has been used recently. I would like to know whether it has been used in the current act.
I also wonder whether this is something that the Tasmanian community would expect our state government to be doing, investing in and providing. When you think about it competing with the need that we have also to be providing for our public and social housing sector, and actually providing our citizens and those most in need with homes. We know that we have shockingly higher waiting lists, going up and up. We know the wait is very long, nearly five years. How can we possibly see it as appropriate to use our very limited resources in an effort to subsidise housing for an industry instead of providing it to our needy citizens? I would like to know more about what the expectation is.
The Government says this is a new area. It does not seem like a new area, to me. It looks like it is capable already under the Homes Act. Even so, it is in this bill. If it comes to pass, what is the plan? How is that going to be balanced? How are those various potential activities going to be balanced against each other? How will we decide whether providing funding or assistance to build a suite of houses for a particular corporate entity or industry interest weights against perhaps a couple of suburbs over or scattered through a town nearby, providing homes for Tasmanians currently homeless? I would be interested to hear about that.
I will flag I do have some amendments principally that relate to the purposes of the act section and the principles in the act. I am still tweaking some of those. There will be a new version of them coming to members before the Committee stage. They are minor things we will deal with when we discuss it during Committee stage. I am hopeful people will see them as valuable adjustments. They are not policy changes. They are not particularly dramatic in the impact they have. They are some important tweaks I would like people to consider.
One of the things I will pick up on we will look at in one of those amendments, but the proposed amendment came about because of a question raised in my mind when I was considering this bill. That was, under this model proposed in the bill, with the statutory authority, Homes Tasmania, who holds responsibility for reducing the numbers of Tasmanians experiencing housing stress and homelessness? Where does that responsibility sit under the model?
Of course, it should sit with the government of the day, executive government, with the Minister for Housing. Primarily. We can all play our part, of course. All of us can play our part into that area. However, when we talk about fundamental policy responsibility, where does it sit? The creation of this authority, the institution of the skills-based board for it who are responsible for that strategy and governance and putting these plans in place, then it does provide a lack of clarity. There is a blurring of a line. There is a gap between the minister and that board. I fear that into that gap, down that chasm, might fall the sense of fundamentally who is responsible and who we hold responsible.
Certainly concern was expressed in many submissions on the draft bill that under this model, social housing and specialist homelessness services would be less seen as essential services. That is a key concern. A balance of things. A balance of objectives and principles is needed and that is not adequately expressed or confirmed.
The member for Elwick also raised this as a concern in his contribution, I do worry about the balance between providing a priority to social housing and public housing and against that, the greater opportunity provided in this bill for corporate welfare, which may then become prioritised. Particularly, if it is ultimately a lot more lucrative and can be then justified as feeding back into repaying debts we accrued through the model.
Where does Homes Tasmanian in this model connect into the private rental market, including, for example, intersecting with responsibility for policy in that area and reform of say, the Residential Tenancy Act? We know these two things intersect and there will naturally be crossover, because some of the activities the responsibility allocated to Homes Tasmania in the bill working to that market. I would like to be clearer about what that intersection looks like. We have now inserted into section 4(2) – I think it is in this act – and this is new compared to the existing Homes Act. We now say, ‘subject to the Residential Tenancy Act 1997’ et cetera, and it talks about tenants in public and social housing being covered by that act.
I would like that confirmed, that all public and social housing tenants are covered by the Residential Tenancy Act, under what is proposed in this bill. Alongside that, I would like to understand, does anything in the bill jeopardise or diminish the tenure of public and social housing tenants from what we see in the current arrangements? That is a clear thing I would like an answer to.
The second reading speech says:
a key feature of the bill is the strategic focus on building communities, where housing developments are planned and coordinated with our communities as they grow and change.
Now, that is interesting because I thought that was an area that is covered by our planning system. It is also an area covered by our local governments, and it is also an area covered by things like our regional land use strategies, currently being reviewed, apparently, sometime soon, coming to a government review near you.
There is plenty going on in the planning system. We have a planning reform agenda; we have Tasmanian planning policies; we have updating the regional land use strategies; we have a review of the State Planning Provisions. All of that is happening; none of that relates to this directly. We do not need this for those things to continue, and in fact, what is established under this bill, Homes Tasmania, will have to intersect with those as per the arrangements in our planning system. I am not sure to what extent it is different to now. I am not clear on that. I do not think we need Homes Tasmania in order to be working with our planning system and with the other entities and stakeholders in that system to try to get better outcomes.
I have heard the minister asserting that the new model will be able to be involved in urban renewal. What jumps straight to mind is that we currently have many stakeholders involved in our social housing sector, who are already involved in urban renewal through the planning of their housing projects and the delivery of a range of services that sit in around the housing that they build, manage and own in all types of communities around the state.
Urban renewal is something that is already underway; it happens under the current model. Could we improve it? Sure, absolutely, we could talk about many ways no doubt. We could learn many lessons from what is being done effectively now. We do not need a new model for that. I am pleased to hear that if this new model does come to pass it is going to get involved, sure, but that is not necessary to establish this authority in order to deliver that.
I am interested in the structure of the entity and staffing, what will look different compared to now? Staffing wise, do we have some information about anticipated staffing of Homes Tasmania, should it come to pass? I am also interested in some comments from the Government about that issue of funding through to service providers in the housing and homelessness space. In its submission on the draft bill, Anglicare said this:
The Housing Authority be given necessary powers to support a responsibility for providing safe, adequate and appropriate supported accommodation to meet the needs of vulnerable Tasmanians, including ensuring adequate recurrent funding for services and staffing.
You cannot just build things, put people in them, and then not adequately and securely over a long term, provide funding to deliver a level of service that is required. Clearly, the sector is looking for reassurance that this new model – should it come to pass – will more effectively and confidently do that then we have seen previously.
Others have talked about reporting. We know that there is a range of reporting. I presume we will still get the same data through quarterly dashboards and things like that. The thing that does concern me is that while, yes, we will still have annual reports, we will still have the Estimates processes, I am concerned and I did ask in the briefing, will we still be able to ask questions in parliament to get answers? That is a key ongoing and more immediate way to hold government, and the functions of government, to account. I share the member for Elwick’s concern that while we were reassured that yes, we can still ask questions of the minister about matters to do with this entity once it is there, we may not then receive any information. I also noted that answer provided in the other place.
Mr Willie – When I said October, I meant October next year, not this one. When they report on the financial year. Yes, a ridiculous answer.
Ms WEBB – When they do the annual report on 2022-2023, that is right. The answer was utterly unacceptable. It is the same minister, with a different portfolio responsibility, talking about the same model that we are proposing here in a separate statutory entity. We have been told we can seek information directly from the minister, through questions in parliament as per usual practice; and yet we have just had that same minister, with a different portfolio area, bat that question away for 14 months.
‘Come back and I ask me in 13 months, I will tell you then’. Not good enough from a minister. That is the reassurance we have about accountability through the minister – through questions in parliament? Utterly unacceptable. Perhaps the minister would like to give us some reassurances about that.
I note there is an expectation that advisory committees will be set up to the proposed board of this Homes Tasmania entity, and that is positive. Advisory groups are one form of consultation. It should not be a box we tick to say ‘yes, we have done consultation, we have an advisory group’. There should be an expectation that consultation would go beyond simply an advisory group. That remains to be seen. We also have a ministerial reference group on housing and homelessness. The minister has told us that it met in July this year and has been working to help develop the 20 Year Housing Strategy.
Will that reference group to the minister continue? What relationship would the ministerial reference group have to the advisory committees to the board of Homes Tasmania? The other missing piece is lived experience. Where are the voices of lived experience in terms of consultation and advisory groups? They need to be there, not just in people who are receiving services through the entity of Homes Tasmania and those who get funds, but also members of the community who would potentially receive service, who are waiting for service or who may need service – that would also be a lived experience group to be interacting with. I am interested to hear about where that may be present in the model.
One final thing about the model – and again, this is probably prompted, by the current sad and disturbing context that we find ourselves in regarding the commission of inquiry. Some of the services that are included in the area covered by the bill are shelters and support services for children and young people. That is often delivered through funded services and I presume that would be the same under the bill. That should prompt us to ask ourselves, who is responsible for child-safe practices within this model? Who is ultimately responsible for ensuring the safety of Tasmanian children involved in this service system, should this model come to pass? Does that come back to the board of Homes Tasmania, as the funder of those services? Does it come back to the minister, as the portfolio responsibility for the area that it is operating in?
Where would we find ourselves – God forbid – if, in a commission of inquiry down the track, we were looking at services funded through this entity and delivered in the community to children and young people and we wanted to track back responsibility for child safety and child‑safe practices. If the Government could provide an answer to that, it would be much appreciated.
In the second reading speech, the Government asserts that nobody in this House can deny we do not need to do things differently. It also says this in the speech:
I want to make it clear that this Government is committed to pulling all possible levers to addressing our housing challenges.
I agree with that first statement. We absolutely all do agree we need to do things differently. That does not mean we all agree this is the right ‘different’ that needs to be done.
In terms of that second one, ‘committed to pulling all possible levers to address our housing challenge’, I cannot let that pass as a statement made by this Government. Many in this place, in the other place and in the community have been pointing out the numerous things this Government could be doing differently for years now, all to no avail, to a government determined to ignore evidence-based advice that does not fit with its ideological agendas. All the while, allowing obscene escalations of our state’s housing emergency. To read in the second reading speech, the Government’s claim they will leave no stone unturned in delivering homes and housing support services Tasmanians deserve is, quite frankly, nauseating. After eight years of failing to deliver on announcements and promises, after refusing to consider sensible reform and regulation to alleviate market failure in our private rental system in this state, at best, comments like that are delusional. At worst, I fear, there is gaslighting, yet again.
Here are some things the Government is not doing differently. Here are some levers it still refuses to pull. Reform of the Residential Tenancy Act which could immediately then deliver us sensible rent controls. Not market equivalence. A sensible decision about what is a reasonable amount a rent could and should rise in any given year. That is not a race to the top, just sensible regulation. Removal of no-grounds eviction, so people cannot just be kicked out at the end of a tenancy in order to deliver a rent rise and get new tenants in – other jurisdictions have gone down this path. There are very clear ways you can protect landlords and make sure there are still clear pathways available to eviction when it is needed. However, no-grounds eviction has no place in a contemporary private market rental. No place at all. Pets and minor modifications: we are way behind on that and a fundamental barrier for some people in our private rental sector. This is something we could address through reforming this act. Better protections in the act against discrimination for single-parent families and welfare recipients. This is a range of things that should and could be discussed were we to reform our Residential Tenancy Act and put conditions in place that better protect those in our rental market. Particularly, the ones around rent are the thing, because that is driving homelessness at the moment – rental increases. We have neglected to do it for years.
Another lever, refusing to pull, refusing to do it, even though the evidence-based calls are there. Regulating the short-stay accommodation market. Properly empowering local government to set locally appropriate limits and regulations for whole houses being shifted into the short-stay market. Another identified key driver of problems in our private rental market. Absolutely failing to respond to that.
How dare this Government say that it is prepared to pull all levers when it is a blatant lie? They are blatantly refusing to pull many levers.
Here is what I would encourage members to think about. Yes, we have some challenges and need for change. The right way forward would have been to clearly identify, quantify, analyse and consult on the challenge, design, possible solutions tailored to those issues, consult further on the possible solutions and take forward a well understood, co-designed plan, which may well have involved a new model.
Importantly, a process like that would also have provided a framework within which to identify and fully discuss other potential impacts and risks possible in the available ways forward. That is not what we have seen with this model. It seems clear that all the things that this model can do are basically able to be done now, setting aside leveraging the asset base, although it is not clear to me that we cannot do that. In many cases, the things in this model are being done now, perhaps not to the extent that is wanted. It is not to say we cannot improve what is being done now, but the possibility is there.
The question is, why do we need to change the model which should be able to deliver the outcomes we want? To sum up, I am highly concerned by this bill and the new model it seeks to establish. With my background in the community services sector and the last decade of that working in policy research and advocacy, among other areas, particularly housing and homelessness public policy, I recognise the magnitude and urgency of problems that we face here. No-one can suggest that I do not.
I very much want to see improvements going forward. I very much want to see us able to house, particularly our most vulnerable Tasmanians. I am very aware that we have failed to progress enough across the last decade in what the state government has sought to do, or failed to do. Overall, we have gone backwards. We need to do more, we need to do things differently. I am yet to be convinced that this bill presents us with the best option going forward, without other additional risks.
I am interested to hear answers to some of the things brought up by other members and some of the things I have raised. I do have amendments that I will bring on some language aspects in the bill, but, I remain highly concerned at this moment.
