❓ Mr. Jacob asks about the state's partnership with the Commonwealth on the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS). Mr. Buswell provides an update on the program's progress, allocations, and interest, while also addressing criticism from the shadow minister.
AnsweredQoN 132Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NATIONAL RENTAL AFFORDABILITY SCHEME
With housing being one of this government’s top priorities — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr A.P. JACOB : Could the minister please update this house on the state’s partnership with the commonwealth government on the national rental affordability scheme, also known as NRAS? Mr T.R. BUSWELL
With housing being one of this government’s top priorities — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr A.P. JACOB : Could the minister please update this house on the state’s partnership with the commonwealth government on the national rental affordability scheme, also known as NRAS? Mr T.R. BUSWELL
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. Before I answer the question, I want to thank those members of the house who joined me this morning on the seventeenth annual mayors and members of Parliament bike ride to Victoria Park. I am a little worried that the member for Nollamara had a flat on the way there, and she still has not returned. I hope she is all right; perhaps the member for Balcatta can go out and trace the route and see whether he can find her. The national rental affordability scheme is a very innovative and successful project that the commonwealth and the state jointly promote. Effectively, at its inception the commonwealth contributed $6 000 by way of a tax incentive, and the state contributed $2 000—that is indexed; those figures are now $7 085 from the commonwealth and $2 250, give or take, from the state—to encourage private investors to invest in housing that they then rent to the market for at least 20 per cent below the prevailing market rate in that area. The commonwealth initially allocated 50 000 places for NRAS. It did reduce that temporarily to 35 000, but it is now back up to 50 000. Western Australia’s per capita share of that was around 5 000 places. The intent was always that that program would be released to the market over a series of five rounds, totalling the 5 000 places that I have mentioned. I will update the house on what has happened over those five rounds. In round 1, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 401 NRAS places. In round 2, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 344 NRAS places. In round 3, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 2 113 places. In round 4, thus far we have allocated 255 places. Therefore, we have allocated 3 100 places, and we have 1 900 to go as we move into round 5. There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr A.P. JACOB : Could the minister please update this house on the state’s partnership with the commonwealth government on the national rental affordability scheme, also known as NRAS? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: I thank the member for the question. Before I answer the question, I want to thank those members of the house who joined me this morning on the seventeenth annual mayors and members of Parliament bike ride to Victoria Park. I am a little worried that the member for Nollamara had a flat on the way there, and she still has not returned. I hope she is all right; perhaps the member for Balcatta can go out and trace the route and see whether he can find her. The national rental affordability scheme is a very innovative and successful project that the commonwealth and the state jointly promote. Effectively, at its inception the commonwealth contributed $6 000 by way of a tax incentive, and the state contributed $2 000—that is indexed; those figures are now $7 085 from the commonwealth and $2 250, give or take, from the state—to encourage private investors to invest in housing that they then rent to the market for at least 20 per cent below the prevailing market rate in that area. The commonwealth initially allocated 50 000 places for NRAS. It did reduce that temporarily to 35 000, but it is now back up to 50 000. Western Australia’s per capita share of that was around 5 000 places. The intent was always that that program would be released to the market over a series of five rounds, totalling the 5 000 places that I have mentioned. I will update the house on what has happened over those five rounds. In round 1, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 401 NRAS places. In round 2, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 344 NRAS places. In round 3, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 2 113 places. In round 4, thus far we have allocated 255 places. Therefore, we have allocated 3 100 places, and we have 1 900 to go as we move into round 5. There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr A.P. JACOB : Could the minister please update this house on the state’s partnership with the commonwealth government on the national rental affordability scheme, also known as NRAS? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: I thank the member for the question. Before I answer the question, I want to thank those members of the house who joined me this morning on the seventeenth annual mayors and members of Parliament bike ride to Victoria Park. I am a little worried that the member for Nollamara had a flat on the way there, and she still has not returned. I hope she is all right; perhaps the member for Balcatta can go out and trace the route and see whether he can find her. The national rental affordability scheme is a very innovative and successful project that the commonwealth and the state jointly promote. Effectively, at its inception the commonwealth contributed $6 000 by way of a tax incentive, and the state contributed $2 000—that is indexed; those figures are now $7 085 from the commonwealth and $2 250, give or take, from the state—to encourage private investors to invest in housing that they then rent to the market for at least 20 per cent below the prevailing market rate in that area. The commonwealth initially allocated 50 000 places for NRAS. It did reduce that temporarily to 35 000, but it is now back up to 50 000. Western Australia’s per capita share of that was around 5 000 places. The intent was always that that program would be released to the market over a series of five rounds, totalling the 5 000 places that I have mentioned. I will update the house on what has happened over those five rounds. In round 1, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 401 NRAS places. In round 2, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 344 NRAS places. In round 3, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 2 113 places. In round 4, thus far we have allocated 255 places. Therefore, we have allocated 3 100 places, and we have 1 900 to go as we move into round 5. There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr A.P. JACOB : Could the minister please update this house on the state’s partnership with the commonwealth government on the national rental affordability scheme, also known as NRAS? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: I thank the member for the question. Before I answer the question, I want to thank those members of the house who joined me this morning on the seventeenth annual mayors and members of Parliament bike ride to Victoria Park. I am a little worried that the member for Nollamara had a flat on the way there, and she still has not returned. I hope she is all right; perhaps the member for Balcatta can go out and trace the route and see whether he can find her. The national rental affordability scheme is a very innovative and successful project that the commonwealth and the state jointly promote. Effectively, at its inception the commonwealth contributed $6 000 by way of a tax incentive, and the state contributed $2 000—that is indexed; those figures are now $7 085 from the commonwealth and $2 250, give or take, from the state—to encourage private investors to invest in housing that they then rent to the market for at least 20 per cent below the prevailing market rate in that area. The commonwealth initially allocated 50 000 places for NRAS. It did reduce that temporarily to 35 000, but it is now back up to 50 000. Western Australia’s per capita share of that was around 5 000 places. The intent was always that that program would be released to the market over a series of five rounds, totalling the 5 000 places that I have mentioned. I will update the house on what has happened over those five rounds. In round 1, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 401 NRAS places. In round 2, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 344 NRAS places. In round 3, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 2 113 places. In round 4, thus far we have allocated 255 places. Therefore, we have allocated 3 100 places, and we have 1 900 to go as we move into round 5. There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: I thank the member for the question. Before I answer the question, I want to thank those members of the house who joined me this morning on the seventeenth annual mayors and members of Parliament bike ride to Victoria Park. I am a little worried that the member for Nollamara had a flat on the way there, and she still has not returned. I hope she is all right; perhaps the member for Balcatta can go out and trace the route and see whether he can find her. The national rental affordability scheme is a very innovative and successful project that the commonwealth and the state jointly promote. Effectively, at its inception the commonwealth contributed $6 000 by way of a tax incentive, and the state contributed $2 000—that is indexed; those figures are now $7 085 from the commonwealth and $2 250, give or take, from the state—to encourage private investors to invest in housing that they then rent to the market for at least 20 per cent below the prevailing market rate in that area. The commonwealth initially allocated 50 000 places for NRAS. It did reduce that temporarily to 35 000, but it is now back up to 50 000. Western Australia’s per capita share of that was around 5 000 places. The intent was always that that program would be released to the market over a series of five rounds, totalling the 5 000 places that I have mentioned. I will update the house on what has happened over those five rounds. In round 1, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 401 NRAS places. In round 2, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 344 NRAS places. In round 3, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 2 113 places. In round 4, thus far we have allocated 255 places. Therefore, we have allocated 3 100 places, and we have 1 900 to go as we move into round 5. There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
I thank the member for the question. Before I answer the question, I want to thank those members of the house who joined me this morning on the seventeenth annual mayors and members of Parliament bike ride to Victoria Park. I am a little worried that the member for Nollamara had a flat on the way there, and she still has not returned. I hope she is all right; perhaps the member for Balcatta can go out and trace the route and see whether he can find her. The national rental affordability scheme is a very innovative and successful project that the commonwealth and the state jointly promote. Effectively, at its inception the commonwealth contributed $6 000 by way of a tax incentive, and the state contributed $2 000—that is indexed; those figures are now $7 085 from the commonwealth and $2 250, give or take, from the state—to encourage private investors to invest in housing that they then rent to the market for at least 20 per cent below the prevailing market rate in that area. The commonwealth initially allocated 50 000 places for NRAS. It did reduce that temporarily to 35 000, but it is now back up to 50 000. Western Australia’s per capita share of that was around 5 000 places. The intent was always that that program would be released to the market over a series of five rounds, totalling the 5 000 places that I have mentioned. I will update the house on what has happened over those five rounds. In round 1, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 401 NRAS places. In round 2, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 344 NRAS places. In round 3, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 2 113 places. In round 4, thus far we have allocated 255 places. Therefore, we have allocated 3 100 places, and we have 1 900 to go as we move into round 5. There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
The national rental affordability scheme is a very innovative and successful project that the commonwealth and the state jointly promote. Effectively, at its inception the commonwealth contributed $6 000 by way of a tax incentive, and the state contributed $2 000—that is indexed; those figures are now $7 085 from the commonwealth and $2 250, give or take, from the state—to encourage private investors to invest in housing that they then rent to the market for at least 20 per cent below the prevailing market rate in that area. The commonwealth initially allocated 50 000 places for NRAS. It did reduce that temporarily to 35 000, but it is now back up to 50 000. Western Australia’s per capita share of that was around 5 000 places. The intent was always that that program would be released to the market over a series of five rounds, totalling the 5 000 places that I have mentioned. I will update the house on what has happened over those five rounds. In round 1, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 401 NRAS places. In round 2, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 344 NRAS places. In round 3, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 2 113 places. In round 4, thus far we have allocated 255 places. Therefore, we have allocated 3 100 places, and we have 1 900 to go as we move into round 5. There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
The commonwealth initially allocated 50 000 places for NRAS. It did reduce that temporarily to 35 000, but it is now back up to 50 000. Western Australia’s per capita share of that was around 5 000 places. The intent was always that that program would be released to the market over a series of five rounds, totalling the 5 000 places that I have mentioned. I will update the house on what has happened over those five rounds. In round 1, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 401 NRAS places. In round 2, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 344 NRAS places. In round 3, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 2 113 places. In round 4, thus far we have allocated 255 places. Therefore, we have allocated 3 100 places, and we have 1 900 to go as we move into round 5. There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr A.P. JACOB : Could the minister please update this house on the state’s partnership with the commonwealth government on the national rental affordability scheme, also known as NRAS? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: I thank the member for the question. Before I answer the question, I want to thank those members of the house who joined me this morning on the seventeenth annual mayors and members of Parliament bike ride to Victoria Park. I am a little worried that the member for Nollamara had a flat on the way there, and she still has not returned. I hope she is all right; perhaps the member for Balcatta can go out and trace the route and see whether he can find her. The national rental affordability scheme is a very innovative and successful project that the commonwealth and the state jointly promote. Effectively, at its inception the commonwealth contributed $6 000 by way of a tax incentive, and the state contributed $2 000—that is indexed; those figures are now $7 085 from the commonwealth and $2 250, give or take, from the state—to encourage private investors to invest in housing that they then rent to the market for at least 20 per cent below the prevailing market rate in that area. The commonwealth initially allocated 50 000 places for NRAS. It did reduce that temporarily to 35 000, but it is now back up to 50 000. Western Australia’s per capita share of that was around 5 000 places. The intent was always that that program would be released to the market over a series of five rounds, totalling the 5 000 places that I have mentioned. I will update the house on what has happened over those five rounds. In round 1, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 401 NRAS places. In round 2, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 344 NRAS places. In round 3, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 2 113 places. In round 4, thus far we have allocated 255 places. Therefore, we have allocated 3 100 places, and we have 1 900 to go as we move into round 5. There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr A.P. JACOB : Could the minister please update this house on the state’s partnership with the commonwealth government on the national rental affordability scheme, also known as NRAS? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: I thank the member for the question. Before I answer the question, I want to thank those members of the house who joined me this morning on the seventeenth annual mayors and members of Parliament bike ride to Victoria Park. I am a little worried that the member for Nollamara had a flat on the way there, and she still has not returned. I hope she is all right; perhaps the member for Balcatta can go out and trace the route and see whether he can find her. The national rental affordability scheme is a very innovative and successful project that the commonwealth and the state jointly promote. Effectively, at its inception the commonwealth contributed $6 000 by way of a tax incentive, and the state contributed $2 000—that is indexed; those figures are now $7 085 from the commonwealth and $2 250, give or take, from the state—to encourage private investors to invest in housing that they then rent to the market for at least 20 per cent below the prevailing market rate in that area. The commonwealth initially allocated 50 000 places for NRAS. It did reduce that temporarily to 35 000, but it is now back up to 50 000. Western Australia’s per capita share of that was around 5 000 places. The intent was always that that program would be released to the market over a series of five rounds, totalling the 5 000 places that I have mentioned. I will update the house on what has happened over those five rounds. In round 1, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 401 NRAS places. In round 2, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 344 NRAS places. In round 3, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 2 113 places. In round 4, thus far we have allocated 255 places. Therefore, we have allocated 3 100 places, and we have 1 900 to go as we move into round 5. There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr A.P. JACOB : Could the minister please update this house on the state’s partnership with the commonwealth government on the national rental affordability scheme, also known as NRAS? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: I thank the member for the question. Before I answer the question, I want to thank those members of the house who joined me this morning on the seventeenth annual mayors and members of Parliament bike ride to Victoria Park. I am a little worried that the member for Nollamara had a flat on the way there, and she still has not returned. I hope she is all right; perhaps the member for Balcatta can go out and trace the route and see whether he can find her. The national rental affordability scheme is a very innovative and successful project that the commonwealth and the state jointly promote. Effectively, at its inception the commonwealth contributed $6 000 by way of a tax incentive, and the state contributed $2 000—that is indexed; those figures are now $7 085 from the commonwealth and $2 250, give or take, from the state—to encourage private investors to invest in housing that they then rent to the market for at least 20 per cent below the prevailing market rate in that area. The commonwealth initially allocated 50 000 places for NRAS. It did reduce that temporarily to 35 000, but it is now back up to 50 000. Western Australia’s per capita share of that was around 5 000 places. The intent was always that that program would be released to the market over a series of five rounds, totalling the 5 000 places that I have mentioned. I will update the house on what has happened over those five rounds. In round 1, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 401 NRAS places. In round 2, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 344 NRAS places. In round 3, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 2 113 places. In round 4, thus far we have allocated 255 places. Therefore, we have allocated 3 100 places, and we have 1 900 to go as we move into round 5. There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: I thank the member for the question. Before I answer the question, I want to thank those members of the house who joined me this morning on the seventeenth annual mayors and members of Parliament bike ride to Victoria Park. I am a little worried that the member for Nollamara had a flat on the way there, and she still has not returned. I hope she is all right; perhaps the member for Balcatta can go out and trace the route and see whether he can find her. The national rental affordability scheme is a very innovative and successful project that the commonwealth and the state jointly promote. Effectively, at its inception the commonwealth contributed $6 000 by way of a tax incentive, and the state contributed $2 000—that is indexed; those figures are now $7 085 from the commonwealth and $2 250, give or take, from the state—to encourage private investors to invest in housing that they then rent to the market for at least 20 per cent below the prevailing market rate in that area. The commonwealth initially allocated 50 000 places for NRAS. It did reduce that temporarily to 35 000, but it is now back up to 50 000. Western Australia’s per capita share of that was around 5 000 places. The intent was always that that program would be released to the market over a series of five rounds, totalling the 5 000 places that I have mentioned. I will update the house on what has happened over those five rounds. In round 1, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 401 NRAS places. In round 2, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 344 NRAS places. In round 3, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 2 113 places. In round 4, thus far we have allocated 255 places. Therefore, we have allocated 3 100 places, and we have 1 900 to go as we move into round 5. There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
I thank the member for the question. Before I answer the question, I want to thank those members of the house who joined me this morning on the seventeenth annual mayors and members of Parliament bike ride to Victoria Park. I am a little worried that the member for Nollamara had a flat on the way there, and she still has not returned. I hope she is all right; perhaps the member for Balcatta can go out and trace the route and see whether he can find her. The national rental affordability scheme is a very innovative and successful project that the commonwealth and the state jointly promote. Effectively, at its inception the commonwealth contributed $6 000 by way of a tax incentive, and the state contributed $2 000—that is indexed; those figures are now $7 085 from the commonwealth and $2 250, give or take, from the state—to encourage private investors to invest in housing that they then rent to the market for at least 20 per cent below the prevailing market rate in that area. The commonwealth initially allocated 50 000 places for NRAS. It did reduce that temporarily to 35 000, but it is now back up to 50 000. Western Australia’s per capita share of that was around 5 000 places. The intent was always that that program would be released to the market over a series of five rounds, totalling the 5 000 places that I have mentioned. I will update the house on what has happened over those five rounds. In round 1, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 401 NRAS places. In round 2, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 344 NRAS places. In round 3, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 2 113 places. In round 4, thus far we have allocated 255 places. Therefore, we have allocated 3 100 places, and we have 1 900 to go as we move into round 5. There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
The national rental affordability scheme is a very innovative and successful project that the commonwealth and the state jointly promote. Effectively, at its inception the commonwealth contributed $6 000 by way of a tax incentive, and the state contributed $2 000—that is indexed; those figures are now $7 085 from the commonwealth and $2 250, give or take, from the state—to encourage private investors to invest in housing that they then rent to the market for at least 20 per cent below the prevailing market rate in that area. The commonwealth initially allocated 50 000 places for NRAS. It did reduce that temporarily to 35 000, but it is now back up to 50 000. Western Australia’s per capita share of that was around 5 000 places. The intent was always that that program would be released to the market over a series of five rounds, totalling the 5 000 places that I have mentioned. I will update the house on what has happened over those five rounds. In round 1, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 401 NRAS places. In round 2, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 344 NRAS places. In round 3, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 2 113 places. In round 4, thus far we have allocated 255 places. Therefore, we have allocated 3 100 places, and we have 1 900 to go as we move into round 5. There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
The commonwealth initially allocated 50 000 places for NRAS. It did reduce that temporarily to 35 000, but it is now back up to 50 000. Western Australia’s per capita share of that was around 5 000 places. The intent was always that that program would be released to the market over a series of five rounds, totalling the 5 000 places that I have mentioned. I will update the house on what has happened over those five rounds. In round 1, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 401 NRAS places. In round 2, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 344 NRAS places. In round 3, which was due for completion on 30 June 2012, we allocated 2 113 places. In round 4, thus far we have allocated 255 places. Therefore, we have allocated 3 100 places, and we have 1 900 to go as we move into round 5. There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
There is a lot of private sector interest in the national rental affordability scheme. The member may be interested to know that there are currently 17 000 expressions of interest for dwellings on the department’s books for the remaining 1 900 NRAS places that have been allocated to Western Australia. I have written to the federal minister for housing asking for some additional allocation to Western Australia because we overachieve in a lot of these programs sponsored by the commonwealth government. We overachieve in Aboriginal housing, we overachieved in delivering on the national stimulus targets, and we have the potential to overachieve on NRAS. It has been a very, very successful program for Western Australia. I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
I was interested to see today a press statement put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the member for Rockingham, that referred to the government rejecting the construction of 3 550 affordable homes. Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr M. McGowan : Correct. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : By way of background, this was an application to NRAS round 3 by a consortium headed by an eastern states group called Providence Housing and which involved BGC Construction in Western Australia. The fact of the matter is that the state government, in allocating a limited capacity, has to make some decisions about who the allocation will go to; we had 1 900 left. Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr M. McGowan : Not for that round, you didn’t. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : One of the criteria we base the decision on is accessibility to land. We have to have access to properly planned land before we can build on it. The second one is the provision of other dwellings in that area. The member for Rockingham has said that the government is terrible for rejecting the Buckeridge group’s application on two grounds. The first ground is that it did not have access to property, and in fact it withdrew one of the components of that application. The member for Rockingham should note that, in Queensland, Providence withdrew its total bid because it did not have access to land. Parts of the application were also refused because of supply in the area. Success, in the member for Cockburn’s electorate, is a case in point. We have built a lot of social housing in and around Success, and I know the member for Cockburn agrees, because I have read him complaining in the local newspaper about the volume of social housing we are putting into that area. Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr F.M. Logan : All in one spot. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Exactly, and we did not think it was appropriate for more housing to go in that place. We have to make decisions to allocate 1 900 places amongst 17 000 applicants. Proximity is one issue, and access to land is another. Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr M. McGowan : You’re deliberately mixing up the rounds. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The member can go out and advocate for BGC all he likes, but I got the shock of my life when the media said to me that the member for Rockingham had said that the state government had not allocated a single house in round 3. I asked whether he had provided any supporting documentation; they said that he had, but that he had said he could not show it to them. It was the newsflash for the day, but he could not give them the documentation. If the member for Rockingham has the documentation today, I invite him to plop it on the table, because—I will repeat it very slowly—2 113 dwellings were allocated in round 3. That is a lot more than zero, member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr M. McGowan : Only 1 400 down. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : If the member for Rockingham wants to make those sorts of allegations, he needs to back them up. He needs to put his proof on the table, because it is quite simply untrue.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.