 I might call on now the speakers of this morning, Dr Fazil, Jason Neal and Mark up to the table and we might take about 10 minutes of questions from the floor. Guys, I just want to talk about an ACT, obviously one of the big things is land release. Like it's actually sometimes it's much easier to get equity in capital as well as we're here than it is to actually find somewhere to build a property on. So if any of you got any ideas about maybe some innovative ways we can convince government to do better land release or even targeted land release saying we'll give you this patch but only if you spend it on an NDS property for example. Yeah I'll try that. So I've been working with Frank now for about six months and thanks Frank. I've been working with Frank now for about six months and this is one of the conversations that we have started and it's actually an ongoing thing. So in terms of is there an easy solution to this? No there isn't but I can say that Frank and his team are willing to have those conversations and hopefully over the next six months or so hopefully we might be able to come up with something but it's not easy and it's a very good question. Thanks Shannon. Just briefly can I add to that I think what we've found too around the country is yes government have a really important role to play because they're such a large landholder but there's other organizations too you know particularly some of the larger based church derived organizations that have really large asset bases and I know some of them are thinking innovatively about how to use their land stock that they have and so having those conversations ensuring there's a lot of values I think can also open up another sort of available land that we could use for some of these projects. Yes my name is Steve Bevington I'm managing director of a community housing organization that manages 5,500 properties built 1200 or so many of them disability based. The question I have of the 80 to 120,000 people this is for Dr. Wiesel who have been identified as needing affordable housing is there data on how many of those could actually secure employment should they get well located accommodation and is there data on what level of equity contribution their families or they may be able to introduce. Thanks for the question. The way that they came up with the figure of 80,000 to 120,000 was that they looked at the number of potential NDIS participants who are on low incomes so and then they distracted the number of people who they think are already in appropriate accommodation already in social housing or in I guess I'm not sure if they I'm not sure about just supported accommodation whether they detracted that but that was a very I guess rough figure that they came up with but by the very nature of the fact that it's people on low incomes I think they're assuming that they'll need affordable housing and by the fact that it's under tier three of what they call people with significant ongoing disability I think the assumption is that employment rates are going to be quite low for that group but there is the data is not good I think there is a need for very good in-depth research about that group and who they are and whether it is in fact that 80 to 120,000 people will indeed move into independent living or some of them would actually stay where they are so it's not known so one of the first stats of community I think Neil covered that I need to have a surplus and that's the first thing for any anybody that's going to lend money to somebody that needs to know how it's going to get paid back and lots of organizations as Neil said they don't they don't work towards a surplus because they want to do what they do with as much money as they possibly can but then they get to the point where they where they want to go in this direction and it becomes a massive hurdle for them to prove that they can serve us there. A second question there is what is the international experience of using social impact bonds to generate capital to increase disability housing stock? I'll take that one it's surprisingly weak or maybe not surprisingly I mean look impact bonds have only been around for about four or so years the first one was in 2010 and was in the UK it was based on recidivism so reducing rear fending rates for people coming out of prison and since then there have been a number of bonds that have gone live in the UK and the States lots of the vast majority are actually on the operating side of service delivery as opposed to the capital side so most of the bonds that we've seen have been in that kind of 10 15 20 million dollar range and as of course as we know when we're talking bricks and mortar and additional stock we're talking much larger leaks of capital most likely if we're talking about scale so we unfortunately can't get a lot from the international experience the other thing I'd mention about bonds is that there is a little bit of a sort of word of caution on them in the sense that they are still in their infancy to some extent and we've seen much more experience in bonds around particular service delivery areas where it fits within a single government department and the savings are very quantifiable and very material to government that's a really critical driver of a sort of a viable bond structure and so within the disability space it's not out of the question but I'd maybe put to you that it's a little bit more challenging around the I suppose the cost to government cutting across a number of different departments the data piece I'm not sure I know it's sort of a different across states and territories but the quality of data around measurement of what the savings are or what the current cost profile is and what the savings will be off the back of a change behavior or increase of stock etc so I'd suggest there's a number of different steps that need to be undertaken before you know you could say that we're in a bond ready kind of position but certainly SVA I know others are very keen to kind of have that conversation with you know various players and sector and governments so I'm curious about the kind of returns that super funds might want for this it's not speculative but it is a new area so are they looking for a higher rate of return on yours and my super after all the returns for super funds have characteristically been 13 14 percent are they looking for a better return I'm looking for the implication in the cost of getting one of these schemes up yeah look it's a really good question I think it's worth mentioning in the super funds we've spoken to they're talking about a very small kind of allocation across their larger funds on the management to be allocated to impact investing and I think they recognize that it is very much a fledgling market and so in the first instance they're open flexible within reason around what those returns might be like so we've had an indication that something in the kind of eight to ten percent range might be viable on what is across their larger portfolios actually almost a drop in the ocean as we start to talk larger pools and a larger proportion of their allocation I suspect the the hurdle will increase but they're amongst some of the players who are very keen to be active in the space they recognize there's a bit of a need for a give and take some of the smaller super funds it's actually their members mandating that they're more proactively investing in this space so Christian super is a good example who actually invested in the the impact bond it was you know comparatively quite a small investment but their members were sort of expecting them to be actively investing into programs projects organizations that are driving a really material social impact more than just the exclusionary of you know gambling and tobacco companies this super fund had a mandate to be proactively investing and therefore with that member mandate it's easier to be a bit more flexible on the risk return profile. Yeah I can just add a little bit to that so super annuation funds they invest their monies across big portfolios so when they're talking returns if you can offer a super fund a a relatively low risk type of investment you can actually get the the funds cheaper so even though you might be getting up around the eight nine or or in some cases even higher over the last 12 months you can still access funds quite quite cheaply and it all comes down to the type of investment so in other words if you've got a really low risk investment and they've got a a I guess you know a risk that they want and and a timeline you can actually get funds and when you think about it you know the cash rates are at record lows some other words they are actually struggling to actually find places where they can actually put money at low rates of low rates of risk yep so it is possible I'm Steve Fox from the National Disability Services. My question relates to I think a comment that was made around the the nature of the security one of the issues with people with disability is is not just affordability but accessibility and I'm interested to know views of the financial institutions around the liveable housing initiative for example which looks at trying to get accessible housing and more generally around the issue of accessibility in in domestic housing. No look I can talk from a financial perspective and a credit perspective so as long as a security is readily saleable you're not really going to have much of an issue so if you're going to make it highly specialised banks finances are going to back away from it if it's something that appeals to the wider market you're not going to have any problems. I hope that answers the question. Yeah I mean I'd only added I'm certainly no expert in the kind of design end of the spectrum but I know there's a number of organisations and and we've had a bit to do with Summer Foundation not sure if any of you have any involvement with them but there's lots of work around the kind of convertibility of different builds and so whilst it might be quite modified but if there's scope for convertibility then the saleability question you get over that hurt a little bit more so I think that needs to be a consideration within design parameters of builds. I think what Neil's saying particularly in your more traditional kind of financial arrangements is absolutely letter of the law and I suppose that's where you know the innovative funding arrangements need to be discussed because in some instances the major banks or traditional finances are not going to be suitable and so how do we look outside they will be for some deals some they won't be and so then what is the other kind of financial structure we create because there's money out there outside of those more traditional vehicles it's around kind of bringing the pieces together to make it viable. The other thing I'd say about this is the reason that everybody needs to be involved because if government were to not contribute but to forego things like stamp duty that will increase in the bank or the lender's mind the equity that the borrower's got in the property because they're not required to come up with that amount of cash as part of the whole deal so all of those things can go towards making it an easier thing to lend on by everybody doing a part to provide more stock. Yeah just one last comment about accessibility that market for accessible housing is not just limited to people with disability also ageing society and so it's a very large market and hopefully the financial institutions understand that. Okay um this was a unique challenge there so thank you very much. Could I go on behalf of us all thank the panel and Dr Faisal, Mark, Jason and me for the present basis this morning.