Tasmanian program designed to encourage sale of affordable land yet to deliver any after 10 months
A Tasmanian government rebate program designed to encourage the sale of affordable land lots is yet to deliver any result.
In the 10 months after applications opened for the Residential Land Rebate Program, seven successful applicants have been allocated $682,505, according to the State Growth Department.
But, as of May 20, zero land lots have been sold.
Developers who apply to the program are eligible for up to $15,000 per lot of affordable land, for a maximum of 40 lots.
The funds are intended to help cover development costs, including internet, water and electricity connections.
The program opened in July 2024 and was backdated to July 1, 2023, with developers given 18 months to complete the sale.
Round one of the program — which offered $10,000 per lot in 2023 — was a success, with more than 3,000 lots of land delivered.
It prompted the liberals to pledge a $10 million extension at last year's state election.
Housing Minister Felix Ellis said developers had 18 months to bring the lots to market.
"The Residential Land Rebate Scheme is one of the many ways our government is boosting housing and land supply across Tasmania," Mr Ellis said.
Half the funds are paid at the start to support development, with the remainder given once proof is provided that the land was brought to market, and sold below an affordable land funding cap — an amount that varies between council areas.
An example on the program's web page appears to indicate that if lots of land are sold for an amount above the land cap, they do not need to return any funding.
It says an applicant who applied for 40 lots would receive $300,000 in the first instalment ($7,500 per lot).
If 30 were sold below the funding cap, they would receive another $225,000 ($7,500 per affordable lot), with no mention of the initial funds needing to be returned for the other 10.
It also does not state whether the funds must be returned for unsold properties.
The program's guidelines state that applicants may be required to return some, or all, of the funds if an applicant does not "complete the activities required under the funding agreement' and some other circumstances.
Labor's finance spokesperson Luke Edmunds said the fund was "clearly not meeting its objectives", and that it was "concerning" developers appeared not to have to pay the money back.
"What guarantees can the government give that this isn't a case of taxpayer money being thrown into a black hole?" Mr Edmunds said.
Promoting the sale of affordable land is part of the government's strategy to tackle homelessness.
Each lot of affordable land sold also contributes to the state government's pledge to deliver 10,000 social and affordable homes by 2032.
It has previously received criticism for including existing rental properties and vacant land in that target, but Mr Ellis has said land "unlocks" the home.
A little over three years after announcing the 10,000 homes goal, the state government has delivered 4,381 homes, including 411 plots of affordable land.
In that time, the social housing wait list has grown from 4,405 to 5,094.
Mr Ellis said the government was "full steam ahead" on delivering the 10,000 homes goal, and that the recent state budget allocated half a billion dollars over the next four years "to get a roof over the heads of Tasmanians".
The caps for what is classed as "affordable" varies depending on the location of the land.
Affordable land within Greater Hobart, including the Kingborough, Clarence and Brighton council areas is capped at $380,000.
Land in "urban" areas, such as Burnie, Devonport, West Tamar and Launceston, are considered affordable up to $310,000.
In "urban fringe" areas, including Latrobe, George Town, Waratah-Wynyard and the Huon Valley, the affordable land cap is $280,000.
The maximum price for affordable land in rural areas — including Dorset, Circular head, Kentish and the Northern Midlands — is $250,000.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

News.com.au
38 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Departing star Adrian Segecic claims Sydney FC player-of-the-year honours
Europe-bound Adrian Segecic has farewelled Sydney FC in style, winning the Sky Blues' player-of-the-season award. Segecic, who has been linked with Austrian club Rapid Vienna, was also awarded the members' best player and Golden Boot gongs at Wednesday night's Sky Blue Ball. 'It's a huge honour to be recognised like this,' said the 21-year-old attacking weapon, who scored 18 goals in all competitions for Sydney in the club's 2024-25 campaign, 'This club means so much to me. I've been here since I was 12-years old and I've worked really hard this season with the support of my teammates and the staff. 'I'm grateful to the members and fans who've been behind us every step of the way.' Segecic's superb individual season had already secured him joint A-League Golden Boot honours with Adelaide United marksman Archie Goodwin. Sydney's women's player-of-the-season award was won by captain Natalie Tobin, who made a successful comeback from a serious knee injury. for the second time,' Tobin said. next season.'

News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Queensland legend Gorden Tallis calls out Blues enforcer Spencer Leniu
Maroons legend Gorden Tallis has called out Blues bench enforcer Spencer Leniu for coming on 'after all the tough stuff is done'. Tallis dared NSW to pick Leniu as injured prop Mitch Barnett's replacement in the starting side for Game 2 and play him for 80 minutes. FOX LEAGUE, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every game of every round in the 2025 NRL Telstra Premiership, LIVE with no ad-breaks during play. New to Kayo? Get your first month for just $1. Limited-time offer > It comes in the wake of Queensland controversially not kicking off to Leniu in the series opener to avoid having to tackle the fresh front-rower charging off the back fence. That was after the state's biggest newspaper, The Courier Mail, ran a back page photo of Leniu the day before the game with the headline 'Smash this Blues Grub'. 'I think Spencer Leniu should start and play 80 minutes,' Tallis said on NRL 360 on Wednesday night, which prompted chuckles from his fellow panellists. 'What, can't he play 80 minutes?' 'Will they kick off to him?' James Hooper fired back. Tallis replied: 'Yeah absolutely. If he comes on and starts with those guys in the middle, I'm sure you'd kick to him. '(Instead he) comes on after all the tough stuff is done, after 25 minutes. Start him and play him 80 minutes.' 'You're suggesting he ducks the hard stuff,' Dave Riccio said. 'I never said that. What's so hard? The game goes for 80 minutes,' Tallis responded. 'Why would he play 80 minutes?' Braith Anasta asked. 'Because that's how long the game goes for,' Tallis said. 'If you guys didn't duck the hard stuff you would have kicked the ball to him. What front-rower in the game plays 80 minutes?' Hooper said. 'Payne Haas does. Don't bag your own teammates,' Tallis said sarcastically. 'I'd pick him and play him 80 minutes but all of you three said he can't. They've got no faith in you, Spencer.' 'You're suggesting he's not tough enough,' Riccio said. 'It's only 80 minutes,' Tallis reiterated. 'But he's only playing 25 off the bench,' Riccio replied. 'Oh right, cool,' Tallis said again sarcastically. The Courier Mail headline came six weeks after Leniu's verbal spat with Maroons legend Johnathan Thurston at Suncorp Stadium, the same venue that hosted Game 1. Leniu's hostility centred around Thurston's comments on the Roosters hard man's eight-game ban for calling Broncos five-eighth Ezra Mam a 'monkey' in Round 1 last year. Mam was then suspended for nine games this season after being responsible for a drug-driving car crash that injured several people.

News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Aldi sued for stocking ‘confusingly similar packaging' to famous snacks
The supermarket of choice for those on tight budgets is being slugged by a potentially devastating legal case. We've all walked past a couple of dubiously named brands that look very much like the original in Aldi's snack isle. But now those cheaper options are being put under the microscope as multinational corporations put the foot down. Snack maker Mondelez, the company behind Oreos and Ritz crackers, has launched legal action against Aldi's US arm, accusing the discount retailer of stocking 'blatant copies' of its iconic biscuit brands. The case claims Aldi's private-label products bear 'confusingly similar packaging' that could mislead shoppers and damage Mondelez's reputation. The company has requested a court order to block Aldi from selling the products in question, alongside a claim for monetary damages. Side-by-side comparisons submitted in the lawsuit show visual similarities between Aldi's chocolate sandwich cookies and Oreos, both featuring blue packaging with near-identical cookie arrangements. Similar comparisons were made between Aldi's Golden Round crackers and Ritz, both wrapped in red boxes with blue and yellow accents. Mondelez alleges it repeatedly warned Aldi about the likenesses. While the retailer reportedly adjusted or withdrew some packaging, others remain on shelves. Aldi, which operates more than 2500 stores in 39 US states and 600 in Australia, has not commented publicly on the case. Known for keeping prices low by selling mostly in-house brands, the German-founded chain has faced similar legal challenges over its private-label packaging in several countries in the past. In Australia, Aldi was found to have infringed copyright in a 2023 case involving children's snack brand Baby Bellies. The court found some of Aldi's Mamia puff products too closely resembled the benchmark design provided by the brand's licensor, Hampden Holdings. Evidence included internal correspondence acknowledging the resemblance. However, Aldi prevailed in other claims involving rice cakes and has appealed the ruling. Elsewhere, Aldi won a 2018 appeal in Australia against Moroccanoil Israel over similar packaging claims related to haircare products, while in the UK, a court sided with cider brand Thatchers in a dispute over bottle design.