Local Govt Rate Rebates and community housing

1
Local Govt Rate Rebates and community housing

• DFC Discussion Paper for
• CHCSA Associations Forum
• 2 Nov 2007

2
Why are we looking at this

• Scope - Rate rebates provided by Local Govt under
  LG Act
• CHCSA - concerns about reduced access by CHOS to
• Previous concessions research project
• Equity across CHOs
• Contribution by Local Govt (recognition of
  diverse need)

3
Complex situation

• Min for Hsg and DFC not responsible for rebates,
  but have an interest
• Local Govt Act major changes in 1999,
  quarantine period over
• Rebate provisions not always clear for CH and
  others
• Local Govt authorities as well as
• OSLGR, LGA, SAIRA, CHCSA, DFC

4
What do we want

• Greater clarity, equity, simplicity
• Dont define as SRFs only
• Support separate from housing -basic principle
  (should not have to provide both in same
  location)
• A supporting Policy useful to provide context and
  explanation
• Consider minor legislative change

5
Previous CHCSA proposals

• Extensive past work
• Various blanket approaches
• Across several types of concessions
• Only for Local Govt rate rebates
• Mandatory LG rebates
• Triggers such as charitable status
• Use term such as supported accommodation
• Regulation specifying organisations
• Certification by SACHA, CHC, LGA

6
CHCSA continued

• Discretionary rebates
• Develop voluntary scheme with agreed definitions
  of eligibility
• Still optional for Councils to use.

7
DFC proposal use CH program

• Different to previous CHC options - still an
  intention to clarify, improve equity, systematise
• Does not need change to Act (minor change may
  assist)
• Can be simple administratively (but not
  guaranteed!)
• CH program already has targeting policy, subsidy
  Dont reinvent

8
How might it work?

• Simplest way all CHOs eligible for rebates
  either mandatory or discretionary
• More complex only some CHOs eligible (based on
  target gps in Act)
• Most complex both organisational asst and
  household asst refer table

9
Why the most complex option?

• Allows CHOs deemed not to fit target groups to
  seek rebates for some tenancies
• Appears fair (CHO targeting people with
  disability gets rebates, but what about a tenant
  with similar needs in a general CHO who may miss
  out)

10
The four colour table

• Four main outcomes from a mixed system (four
  colours)
• Organisational assessment (yellow and orange) or
  individual tenancy (green and blue).

11
Outstanding issues include

• Several issues remain
• Mandatory vs. discretionary not always clear
• CHOs may have a mix of tenancies/properties, need
  gps, and fit more than one category
• Current definition of support a concern
• Support may be limited term
• Community benefit imprecise.
• We need your views on whether this could be
  workable.
• Timeframes for current work -OSLGR