Amendment to Notice of Motion
HON COLIN TINCKNELL (South West) [1.07 pm]: Madam President, pursuant to standing order 62(b), I seek leave to move my motion in an amended form, as follows —
That this house calls on the state government to extend stamp duty exemptions to Western Australian retirees to the property value of $800 000 and capped at $17 500 in order to —
(a) provide an incentive when downsizing from their current home; and
(b) allow them to maximise the equity in their current home and encourage them to move to a dwelling that would better suit their circumstances.
By way of explanation, the only change to the motion is the insertion of the words “to the property value of $800 000 and capped at $17 500 in order”.
Leave granted.
Motion
HON COLIN TINCKNELL (South West) [1.08 pm]: I move —
That this house calls on the state government to extend stamp duty exemptions to Western Australian retirees to the property value of $800 000 and capped at $17 500 in order to —
(a) provide an incentive when downsizing from their current home; and
(b) allow them to maximise the equity in their current home and encourage them to move to a dwelling that would better suit their circumstances.
Comments and speeches from various members
HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [1.37 pm]: I rise because I am happy to speak on this quite important matter. We note that today, around 12 per cent of the Western Australian population is aged 65 years and older. That compares with 1971, when only 7.4 per cent of the population was over 65. It has been said many times in this chamber already that the proportion of seniors is set to increase to over 18 per cent by 2050. We know that an ageing population will cause challenges for us in a number of areas, and we need to rethink the way we operate in things like the delivery of services. Providing appropriate housing for people as they age is a key issue that we need to be mindful of. In raw numbers, we are talking about one million Western Australians aged between 65 and 84 by 2050. That is a lot of people who need to have appropriate housing.
Currently, the vast majority of older people reside in their own homes; 65 per cent of older Australians are still living in their homes. Nine per cent are grouped into other categories, including crisis accommodation, hospitals and institutions. We have 6.7 per cent of seniors living in private rentals, and we understand that, for a lot of those people there are very clear challenges, particularly when they are on fixed incomes. That is probably a debate for another day, but it is one that we need to be very mindful of. A further 5.9 per cent live in retirement villages. I am looking forward to hopefully seeing the reforms of the retirement villages legislation sooner rather than later, but I will say bit more about that in a moment. Five per cent live in residential aged care, four per cent are in public housing, and one per cent in residential parks, which is another area in which I am hoping we will see some reforms come into this place for debate very soon. To ensure that we best meet the needs and expectations of older Australians, we need to first recognise that they face very different housing challenges from those experienced by other age groups. Baby boomers in particular bring with them a set of different social and economic characteristics from the previous generation. They are more likely to be educated, many of them privileged to have received free education at a certain point in their lives, although not all of them, but many have, and they are more ethnically diverse. They are also more likely to be divorced or have separated later in life, and that can create economic challenges as people get older. An increased proportion have not had any children while others find themselves being the primary carer for children, grandchildren and, increasingly, older parents.
We know that most older Australians have limited ability to increase their income and their assets post-retirement, and that means they will be particularly vulnerable to changes in housing affordability. It is clear that a review of taxes is an important strategy, recognising that it is still only one strategy. There will be a need for a whole suite of measures to improve the housing situation for seniors.
This is an area that the Greens have long considered and advocated for within state Parliaments around Australia and federally. We have been pushing for a long time for governments to provide incentives for the community housing sector and other developers to ensure that we are producing more appropriate housing to meet the future needs of an increasing number of older Australians. This includes developments that facilitate ageing in place. As the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety rolls on, we will start to reinforce why many people very much want to stay in their own home and be able to age in place. It is also about maintaining connection with community, about the history of where they live and feel comfortable and that sometimes people want to stay within the areas they live in.
We also recognise that the state government can and must play a central role in the provision and regulation of support services for older Australians, such as housing and care services. We have long pushed for suitable accommodation, including affordable and quality public and social housing for seniors, including people who live in regional and rural Western Australia. We want to see more appropriate support services for older Australians who choose to remain in their own homes. We also want to ensure that we are working with the building industry to adopt standards of universal design for accessibility, adaptability and environmental sustainability for all residential construction. If seniors want to downsize, as I say, we think they should be able to choose from a range of housing options that allows them to stay within their geographical community.
I note a 2016 Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre report, “Keeping a roof over our heads”, which found Australia’s housing stock is not meeting the demands of older Australians. Most of Australia’s housing stock is made up of separate houses with at least three bedrooms. This lack of housing options is a major factor for older Australians continuing to live in larger dwellings than they would like or can effectively manage. In WA, where four out of five dwellings are separate houses, more than one quarter of households aged 55 years and over live in dwellings with not just three bedrooms, but three or more spare bedrooms. Access to smaller dwellings is clearly important and we must work with the building industry to adopt the standards of universal design for accessibility, adaptability and environmental sustainability for all residential construction.
I think there is also great merit in looking at ensuring that excessive stamp duty does not become a barrier to people being able to downsize because I think it is a positive sign to see movement within the housing market. Of course, it means that if there is more movement, even if stamp duty coming from a certain portion of the population is diminished, more stamp duty will come in overall because people will be more likely to move house. We know that the lack of movement in the housing market has also contributed to issues around housing affordability, particularly for younger Australians and Australian families. It would be a positive move to look at ways to ensure that people can change their accommodation or dwellings as their life circumstances change, without leaving them with an onerous financial burden. If people have, effectively, built up an asset—for many people in Australia, their house is their only asset or is pretty much the primary asset—to have its value diminished through stamp duty can be a significant blow, particularly for people on fixed incomes.
However, increasing housing options, which is something we need to do, is dependent on not only the physical housing stock, but also other factors such as whether current housing legislation supports the needs of older Australians. I have referred already to the existing legislation providing for retirement villages and long-stay parks. At the moment, it is dreadfully insufficient in protecting older Australians from issues such as unconscionable contracts. The sooner we can address that legislatively the better. I have previously spoken at length in this place about the need for urgent reforms to the Retirement Villages Act to increase protections for people living in retirement villages, particularly given that the percentage of retirees who choose this lifestyle is second only to that in South Australia.
I note again that reviews of the act began in 2002 and although one amendment bill went through in 2012, heaps of outstanding issues need to be resolved. Last year during debate in this place on my motion on retirement villages, I called for change in three key areas: fairer contracts, training of managers and better dispute resolution mechanisms. At that time, the minister advised that a discussion paper would be released early this year to inform the drafting of another bill. However, unfortunately, it still has not arrived and I have recently learnt that it will not occur and, instead, the government has elected to release several policy papers over the next 12 months or so. Although I appreciate the complexity of the issues, I am concerned about what this will mean when the actual reform is going to come to pass. I hope we will get some movement on that soon. I am pleased, however, to see that the government is looking to be moving sooner rather than later on improving protection for residents of long-stay parks because these older Australians also need to be protected.
There are lots of issues around why people decide that they need to downsize. I think it is problematic when older people are effectively rattling around in houses they cannot manage and struggle to maintain. If it is their primary asset, their inability to keep up with maintenance means their asset will diminish in front of their eyes, and that is problematic. Excessive stamp duty can be a significant barrier to people being able to downsize as appropriate when their life circumstances are better suited to that. As I have said, the issue of ageing in place has a direct correlation with longevity and general good mental health for people, as studies have demonstrated—it is important for people to stay in their own home for as long as they can. One way to achieve this is to ensure people can live in appropriate accommodation that is suited to their needs, particularly as they age. As I have said, people are doing this in a number of ways, such as moving into a retirement village or long-stay accommodation, but we need more community housing. But ensuring that we do not have barriers to people being able to downsize is a really important part of that as well. We recognise that reviewing taxes like stamp duty is clearly an important consideration in improving the access of older Australians to appropriate housing options, but we also need to remember that there is a whole suite of other important measures that need to be addressed.
We know that our population is ageing. As I have said, Western Australia will have about a million older people by 2050, so that is a lot of people for whom we need to ensure appropriate accommodation and services. We cannot afford to keep putting off this issue. I thank the member for bringing the issue to this place. It is an important issue for us to be mindful of. I think the state government well and truly has a role to play in this issue. I do not see that this would necessarily remove income from the budget, if it meant that there would be more movement in the housing market, which would therefore mean that stamp duty would simply be coming from other purchasers. In any event, the Greens are happy to support this motion, recognising that it is just one part of a much larger picture.
Comments and speeches from various members
Amendment to Motion
Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I move —
To delete all words after “house” and substitute —
recognises that the gross mismanagement of the stage budget by the previous government has severely limited the current government’s ability to provide stamp duty exemptions to elderly Western Australians seeking to downsize their homes.
Comments and speeches from various members
Division
Amendment put and a division taken with the following result —
Ayes (10)
Noes (13)
Amendment thus negatived.
Motion Resumed
Comments and speeches from various members
Amendment to Motion
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: I move —
To delete “to the property value of $800 000 and capped at $17 500” and substitute —
of $15 000 for new and established homes up to the value of $750 000 for the 2019–20 and 2020–21 financial years
Comments and speeches from various members
Amendment put and passed.
Motion, as Amended
Comments and speeches from various members
Division
Question put and a division taken, the Deputy President casting his vote with the ayes, with the following result —
Ayes (17)
Noes (10)
Question (motion, as amended) thus passed.