Ms O’CONNOR question to MINISTER for HOUSING and PLANNING, Mr VINCENT
I want to apologise upfront because I know he has a very sore knee ‑ I feel a bit bad making you walk across to the lectern.
In response to my earlier question, you said something very interesting about Homes Tasmania. You said you’re extremely committed to it ‘in part’. I would like to explore with you a little bit more what that means. Budget Paper 1 in its Risks, Sensitivities and Presentation section says of Homes Tasmania: ‘The funding and delivery model is placing increased fiscal pressure on the State Budget.’ Minister, can you agree on the evidence that the funding and delivery model for Homes Tasmania is unsustainable? It’s potentially inefficient and ineffective in terms of delivering on the government’s stated policy objective to deliver 10,000 new homes by 2032.
ANSWER
Mr President, I thank the member for her kind thoughts in my movements today, and over the next few weeks until I can make the surgery list.
I don’t agree with your assumptions. The debt level ‑ to fix the situation we’re in ‑ not just in Tasmania but everywhere ‑ is going to cost. However, if you look at some of the papers, you’ll see that Homes Tasmania, with developments like the old Penguin sports ground and Huntingfield, have a sensible ratio or mixture of social and affordable units and houses, and a genuine blend of the blocks that are available for sale. If you look at that, it’s about an 85/15 split, 85 per cent for affordable housing and general sale of blocks and housing; 15 per cent for what they keep in the social, affordable rentals and other parts of it.
That formula comes around through the balance of being able to sell some of those blocks to pay for some of the others. Homes Tas have had substantial outlays with Huntingfield over a number of years, also with Penguin and some of the other land that we’ve put aside, like at Warrane recently, where it will take time for that catch‑up of the balance to assist in paying for some of these homes to happen.
My comment regarding Homes Tasmania, in part, referred to what I also added there of the Margaret Crawford report ‑ there are things that have to change. The principle of Homes Tasmania delivering what it needs to, to me, doesn’t change whether it’s inside government or separate as a statutory authority. It is the mechanisms that the identity has to deliver what we need for social and affordable housing in Tasmania, and that’s the part that I mean where we can fine‑tune the model, in my firm belief, to make it better going forward. That’s where my part commitment and commitment to the Crawford report in making those changes to make it more efficient.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Ms O’CONNOR – A supplementary, Mr President?
Mr PRESIDENT – The member for Hobart.
Ms O’CONNOR – I beg to differ on whether or not it makes a difference that it’s a government business or a government agency. Since it became a government business, it’s only been able to fund the delivery of new construction based on borrowings and partnerships to try to secure Commonwealth funding, which is not always successful, as it wasn’t in the first half round.
If you want to take this on notice, that’s okay: could you detail to the Council how many social homes, how many affordable homes Homes Tasmania has been primarily responsible for delivering since it came into being on 1 December 2022.
Mr President, on your indulgence, I mean this as no disrespect to the good people who work in Homes Tasmania. I’m talking about the structure and the model.
Mr VINCENT – Mr President, to make sure that the figures are accurate and the break‑up is accurate, I have some general numbers that run to that mid‑4500 they’ve already done. However, I would like to take that on notice so that we are accurate in the break‑up and definition of those different parts.
Ms O’Connor – Thank you. From 1 December 2022 is the start date.
