House debates
Wednesday, 24 October 2018
Bills
National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2018; Second Reading
5:43 pm
David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source
I rise to speak on the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2018. It is a very important piece of legislation that addresses a very pressing need in Australia—that is, to facilitate better and cheaper funds for community housing providers. Just to put things in perspective—many of you already realise this, but I'll just repeat it for the benefit of the House—states have traditionally provided public housing, but there is a sector in that space called community housing. On a commercial basis, but with any profits rolled back into the community housing provider's coffers, community housing is used to grow more affordable housing.
The Commonwealth is already suppling—this is approximate, because I don't have the exact figures—about $4.4 billion over the forward estimates in Commonwealth rent assistance. Recently, some states, including New South Wales, have rolled some of their stock over into the community housing market so that it facilitates better management, an expansion of stock and an expansion of other houses and apartments. It also means that the tenants in the community housing are now eligible to claim Commonwealth rent assistance. That in itself makes many unaffordable rentals affordable, and the Commonwealth really does stump up an enormous amount of funds to support affordable housing.
We've also released, in the announcements made in the last 18 months or so, serious amounts of Commonwealth land in both Melbourne and Sydney for housing projects, and we've stumped up hundreds of millions of dollars for the remote housing agreement again.
This bill addresses the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation and some necessary amendments to the act that created it earlier this year. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation is a new entity, a Commonwealth entity, which has as its core function to be a source of funds for the community housing providers. It also establishes a bond aggregator, the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, so that it can cluster as a single borrower of funds through bonds for the community housing providers and get many basis points benefit for the community housing providers by the fact that they are borrowing funds in bulk.
There is a $1 billion facility that's already set aside. The NHIF, or the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, has been capitalised with $150 million.
What the amendments in the bill do is implement the recommendations that a Senate committee of review made. I'll just go through some of those. The bill establishes the criteria for the board appointment process, the skills that they require, and it also requires that the facility never has funds greater than $1 billion. It should be debited by the amount of the excess, and that excess amount is returned to consolidated revenue. It's a facilitator of cheaper funds. It may give the minister the regulatory power to direct that a specific amount be debited from the special account and returned to consolidated revenue. Obviously the minister would have to consult with the board.
These amendments also bring forward the planned appropriations that were outlined. I'll just go through those figures again. At the commencement of the bill, $105 million is credited, followed by $310 million on 1 July 2019, $270 million credited on 1 July 2020 and a further $165 million credited on 1 July 2021.
These amendments outline the skills and the qualifications required for the board members, and there should be an appropriate balance of qualifications. Like any board, you've got to have multiple skills for proper governance, but skills and experience relevant to that board's actions—that is, they have a legal or banking and finance background; experience in the housing sector; experience with infrastructure planning and delivery, local government or public policy; and obviously experience of how the community housing providers work.
The bill provides also for a statutory review of the operations of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation after a period of two years—very wise words, because it hasn't operated before. We've got to see how it's going and whether it's operating as it was purposed.
At the root of all this is the issue of affordable housing. Anyone who has lived in one of the major cities or has got family in the major cities realises that rents are sky high, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, and to a lesser extent in Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart—you name it. Wherever you are, capital cities in Australia have high rents at the moment. That is why the Commonwealth provides Commonwealth rent assistance. It's not only for community housing; it's also for people in the private rental market.
I would bring the attention of the House to the fact that decentralisation would be a great solution for the housing affordability crisis. We have many regional towns and cities that have room to move. They have the infrastructure, the water supply, the schools, the health facilities and industry. That's why the National Party is so committed to the principle of decentralisation. We have the Regional Growth Fund, which will allow successful applicants to grow their industries or their initiatives and provide infrastructure that will allow the economies in the regions to grow. Aside from Australia, other countries, such as Europe or America, have very decentralised populations. In Germany, for instance, there are only a couple of cities that have more than 600,000 people in them. But, in Australia, we've got Melbourne and Sydney vying to be 'super cities'. It's not logical that we put all our infrastructure and the majority of our population in two major centres when we have so many other areas that have all the recipes for much greater growth.
You need a catalyst, and that's why the policy of decentralisation is so important. If there are government bodies or statutory authorities that are more suited to a regional location, why shouldn't they be there? If you're administering the Murray-Darling Basin, being centred in the middle of Canberra is a long way from the Murray-Darling Basin. Admittedly, the Molonglo River goes into the Murrumbidgee, which then goes into the Murray, so it is part of the basin. It's the same with having fisheries near the fishing industry and so on and so forth. Relocating the APVMA to Armidale, next to the University of New England, where many of the APVMA workforce was educated—where we have airports, internet, brand-new buildings, a university culture and where a lot of the agricultural bodies have their head offices—is a natural fit. I can see they've already been swamped with applications to go and work there. So I think it's going to be a great benefit, and you'll see the New England area get another boost. When the New South Wales Department of Agriculture moved to Orange, there was kicking and screaming all around. But, if you now told workers and employees of the New South Wales agriculture department that they were moving from Orange, I think you would see a mass revolt.
Decentralisation really works for affordable housing, but the trick is to get industry, rather than just government authorities, to move to regional centres. We need to have facilities in place so that industry will move and operate in the regional cities. That's why connectivity is so important. That's why we put so much money into built infrastructure like the Pacific Highway, linking the eastern seaboard—all the cities of Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie, Taree and down to Newcastle. Virtually, when it's finished, you will be able to put cruise control on at the exit of Sydney and you won't hit a traffic light till you get to the Gold Coast. It's a great piece of work. Also important is the expansion of connectivity in a digital sense. Through the international satellite system, the NBN now has two new satellites, delivering a much better service for regional Australia. So businesses can operate wherever they want to set up, where they are near their product. All these things, cumulatively, make regional development possible.
That's the other thing: for regional centres to grow, like any civilisation, they rely on water. That's one of the first things when you're planning a city or a town—you have to have a reliable water supply. And that's why we're so committed to expanding the dams around the nation: because you won't get sustained population growth and you won't have sustained agriculture unless we have stored water. Everyone's familiar with the Snowy Hydro scheme, but that feeds into the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area as well. The expansion of dams in Queensland will allow vast swathes of irrigated agriculture, which will then allow population growth—around the nation and around the world—but it also puts a floor of primary production into regions. All those things will facilitate regional development—water supply, infrastructure, and digital connectivity, as well as physical connectivity with highways. That's why we're rolling out the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative. That's why we are putting money into the Bruce Highway and, as I said, the Pacific Highway upgrades, and upgrades in Victoria and South Australia, and all around the nation—all those things will facilitate growth in the regions.
This bill is a response to the Senate committee recommendations that will improve the governance and the regulation of this new facility, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, and the bond aggregator. These are both great initiatives. The community housing providers supply an awful lot of housing in a very cost-effective manner—much more than private developers. I'm not saying that they're inefficient, but the price and the affordability of the product is much better. To help them grow, if we can get them a source of cheap, long-term funds, all the better. That allows them to deliver a much larger product and many more houses. What I am very concerned about, as the member just spoke about, is the threat to the property development in this country—that is, the removal of negative gearing and changing the capital gains discount. That will seriously depress building activity. The Master Builders Association in their report outlined the figures. It's genuine modelling—they're hardly a political body; they are just worried about the negative consequences for affordable housing. We saw it happen decades ago. I'm old enough to remember when negative gearing was removed. Rents in Sydney skyrocketed. The same thing will happen again, if this was to come to fruition. That's why we on this side of the House understand these things— (Time expired)
No comments