HomeBuilder Grant Applications

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (15:06): My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer update the chamber on the HomeBuilder scheme and, in particular, any issues relating to the large number of applications that are now in place?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:07): I have previously informed the chamber, and publicly, of the significant number of HomeBuilder applications, which I am advised has, as of 9 February, now grown to 8,779 HomeBuilder grant applications. I remind members that when the scheme was originally announced the commonwealth believed there would be about 1,800 applications in South Australia. This significant number of applications has placed tremendous pressures on the system collectively.

I am advised by RevenueSA that 4,500 of those applications were not actually received until just before Christmas; that is, in the month of December. The reason for that was that at that particular time there was an ongoing debate about trying to extend the period of time between the signing of a contract and when construction had to commence to be eligible for the $25,000 HomeBuilder grant. A number of builders and applicants delayed the actual lodging of the application until the last possible moment to spread their workload out.

When it got to the end of that particular period, the end of December, all of a sudden more than half of the total number of applications were dumped at RevenueSA in that month, just getting into Christmas. That has meant some delays in relation to the processing by RevenueSA of this very, very large number of applications. RevenueSA has advised me that almost half of all applications require follow-up information in terms of ensuring that the strict eligibility requirements from the commonwealth are complied with.

The most common requests for further information from RevenueSA back to the applicants have been the need to provide the building contract rather than a preliminary works agreement; the building contract not being signed by all parties or relevant schedules outlining the price not having been provided; a breakdown of payments not provided; missing land contracts where a subdivision is occurring; a builder's licence is not provided or incorrect; providing the official ATO notice of assessment for 2018-19 or for 2019-20; evidence of a change of name where an applicant is married or separated and the ATO notice of assessment is not in the same name as the build contract and the land title; official evidence of citizenship for applicants; clarification relating to demolition of an existing home; a breakdown of the works and pricing in relation to renovations, bearing in mind that this, for the first time, involves substantial renovations as one of the potential eligibility criteria for a HomeBuilder grant; and also, more importantly, evidence that a contract was not signed before 4 June when evidence and supporting documents suggest the deposit has been paid and works completed prior to 4 June.

We have had some very creative applicants, who, it is alleged, have laid the slab, for example, up to six, 12 or 18 months prior to the commencement of the scheme in the middle of last year and who creatively have sought to retrospectively—if I can put it kindly—make application for the HomeBuilder grant. It is the challenge of RevenueSA officers to distinguish that very small number, I might say—a very small number of people—who might be acting creatively, if I can use that phrase. In accordance with the commonwealth eligibility requirements that is the responsibility of RevenueSA.

So it is a huge challenge for RevenueSA. There are, understandably, pressure points as people try to manage their finance and discussions with builders. I am told as of 10 February we now have 30 full and part-time staff who have been transferred from other sections of RevenueSA, other sections of the Public Service, into this particular scheme to try to manage the eligibility criteria. I am advised we are further training others, because it does require some expertise to try to add to that particular complement.

If I could just conclude, the extraordinary nature of this scheme is that the very biggest builder in South Australia has, in that particular company—and there are three or four companies as part of that particular group—900 separate applications. The second biggest building company in South Australia has more than 600 separate applications, so that is 900 and 600 homes that those companies are going to be building in this space of time through this year. Finally, I am told that in excess of 1,400 unique builders are involved across the—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: How many?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Fourteen hundred. I didn't realise we had that many residential home builders in South Australia. I'm told that we actually have many more than the 1,400, but there are actually 1,400 separate unique home builders.

I have highlighted the issue before: there are going to be ongoing issues in relation to the quality of the work, which are being raised by some of the stakeholder groups. I know Consumer and Business Services will be keeping a watchful eye on those, as will the stakeholder organisations like the MBA and the HIA and others. But there are significant challenges.

They are wonderful problems to have, because we are managing a boom in terms of economic and jobs growth in the state, so they are wonderful problems to have as opposed to some of the problems we were addressing back in April of last year, but nevertheless in and of itself they are creating significant challenges for the home building industry, for the stakeholders in that particular industry together with the RevenueSA staff.

I place on the public record my thanks to the staff who are working long hours to try to process these applications and also to the residential home building industry, who are working long hours to build the houses within the time frames that are required under the eligibility criteria.

I will not repeat what I said in the last sitting week in relation to my sympathy that it may well be that at some stage we might need to see whether the commonwealth government is prepared to further extend—they have already been generous in extensions—the time periods, but that is an issue for the federal government. We will continue to have those discussions with the federal government at the appropriate time.