Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I know some people on the other side may mock this proposition but, when it comes down to it, they know the truth. They know the truth that this legislation, our legislation, and the full program of this government, is to deliver for the Australian people.

Housing is one of those issues that, when it comes down to it, is foundational for our sense of security within society. I often talk about people who wake up, get out of bed, go brush their teeth, dress themselves, go off to work and be able to invest in their own future off the back of their labour and investment in themselves and their families as the foundation for community and our great nation. But housing is a critical part of that. If you ever want to see people's lives disrupted and people's lives undermined, it's where they don't have a place that they call home. Home is not just the place where people store their sometimes limited possessions; a home is more than just a place. A home is somewhere where families come together, where people share time with their loved ones—sometimes private time—and with friends. It is their island in a world unpredictable. It is also critical for the foundation of every other part of success. It's like the foundation stone of building a life. So having a home is critical. We all know that, and I hope even the opposition would acknowledge the critical role of housing.

There's no greater security that can be achieved in life than the capacity to be able to go on and own your own home, to be the custodian of a property, and to be able to have the ultimate sense of security. But we know full well that not everyone is in the situation. There are millions of Australians who are on their way in life, having gone to school, maybe gone to tertiary education or maybe gone straight into the workforce, and they graduate from living at home—and, tragically, sometimes people can't even fulfil that—to then go on and rent and, ultimately, are in the position, if they're able to save, to get that ownership and foundation within society. But there are also many people who struggle even to achieve that—and, frankly, often, it's due to factors outside their control.

We as a nation—particularly one as wealthy as ours—cannot turn a blind eye to the plight and suffering of those people and say that we don't have their back; that we don't care about their need for security. But it can't always just be overcome with more labour or more work, particularly with the challenges we face in housing affordability on the private market at the moment. This government, working with the states and territories on this issue—which is a critical part of it, as we of course are oft a distant capital, and the states work directly with people delivering services—is keen to make sure that every Australian has not just a sense of security but also the foundation for a successful life, particularly those who are most vulnerable and have the least capacity to correct their situation—often young women who have had children and may no longer have a supportive spouse and really need the support of this place and the support of their fellow citizens. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation is part of that important framework, in operating a $1 billion fund under the National Housing Infrastructure Facility. It's a critical part of the overall national approach to addressing the challenges we face in making sure that everybody can have their own home—and we know how critical that is.

If we look around the country today—and there's plenty of data out there—we see a worrying trend. We see a decline in the rate of private home ownership across almost every single age group in the country. In fact, it's only in the top economic quintile of people over the age of 65 that we see an increase. Every other age group is seeing some form of decline. It's more modest in the 65-plus category, a little greater in the 55-plus category, a little greater again in the 45-plus category, but when you get down to home ownership rates amongst people under the age of 35 and 25, I make no apology: I'm concerned about it, seriously concerned about it.

Home ownership is not just about a place where people live; it is an investment in the status quo. If you want preservation of a liberal democracy, as I do, a society built on ownership and opportunity, home ownership is critical. Once people make an investment in the status quo, they have an interest in preserving it. If you're a true conservative—and I need to make that point—then you understand the critical role of housing and how it should be at the fore of the minds of everybody in this place if we want to preserve the best of the past and take it forward for the future.

I saw this directly in my former role, when I was human rights commissioner, particularly working with Indigenous communities. Of course, yes, you had people who were displaced from their custom, their culture and their land. What came with that was a legacy of displacement and disruption of a continuation of thousands of years of culture and tradition. But, when you removed that connection, you also severed that sense of security that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders hold. It is not the same as our modern title of land that we have, where people buy their own home. Yes, it can be on the basis of collective ownership. But the principle that sits behind it and the security that people derive from a place they call home, no matter the culture, can never be underestimated. This is what the Chinese Communist Party never understood when they sought to deal with issues around property rights—that people would stand there and fight, even against the tyranny and the oppression of the state that wanted to displace them and move them for some sort of collective ambition.

Private property ownership and ownership generally and having a place called home is foundational for any society that wants to seek to preserve itself. And part of the enduring challenge that we have in this place, when you look at all the well-intentioned but failed policies designed to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, is that we are constantly trying to repair the damage that we have done, to rebuild the connection to that sense, that cultural understanding, of a place called home. And it's no different in practice for so many people who lose their home in our modern society as well. But, if we're going to address the challenges around making sure people in whatever economic stage in life have access to housing that meets their needs, we must be realists. People cannot simply turn to the state to provide all of the supported welfare benefits that they wish or may seek. That suffocates not only the spirit of entrepreneurialism but also the sacrifice that's necessary to have a society that sustains itself. People should be encouraged to stand on their own two feet and to be able to take care of themselves not out of a selfish ambition but so they're in the best position to take care of themselves so they're not a burden on others and so that they can help others stand up too. But a critical part of that is also because then they leave open the space that others need to get support and assistance for other types of social support.

When people come to me and speak to me about the challenges around social housing—and I'm not seeking to play it down; it is a serious issue—there are challenges we need to face to provide the financial instruments, the bond structures, for governments, for the private sector, for community organisations and for civil society organisations to finance the development of new housing for people. But the greatest thing we can do to lessen the burden on the social-housing system is to have a private system that works, because the more people who can take care of themselves, the less people will turn to the social-housing system and say, 'We need assistance and support.' Free up the places that those less fortunate than ourselves depend upon. That should be our ambition in our housing policy: to make the private system work and to support those who can't.

That's part of what this bill is trying to address as part of a national strategy—again, working with the states and the territories because they are ultimately the service providers. Our $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility and its Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator can do enormous good in helping to change the landscape for more available housing, but that is only one part of that story. We need states to step up and meet the expectations of them, their obligations, and those are to be able to shift the regulations and the controls so that there is more housing available for different stages of life, in locations where people need to live, and to stop suffocating new development.

That's one of the things I have great concerns about in our opponents' policy come the next election. We saw modelling data out today, looking at the consequences of changing rules around taxing losses, which is what the Labor Party are proposing, should they win the next election, if people invest in housing. Most people talk about it as negative gearing. It's not; it's putting a tax on losses. It is possibly the most ridiculous policy proposal you could ever invent—to tax a loss. And what did the modelling show for the forward projections in terms of housing development? The introduction of this tax on losses will lead to 42,000 fewer homes developed in Australia, 42,000 families who will be denied the opportunity to secure their own home, 42,000 Australian families who will be pushed into the pool of those dependent on existing housing, so 42,000 families who will add to the burden on the social-housing stock—and why? Because our political opponents don't actually have answers to these pressing problems. Instead, they are going to tax losses and undermine confidence in housing development, rather than focusing on the sorts of policies that are in this legislation so that we can deliver the housing stock Australians desperately need.

See this speech in context