Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

As I rise to speak to the bills before the House, the reality is that the Australian housing market is in crisis and Australians from all walks of life are facing the cost-of-living crunch. In my own seat of North Sydney, over 50 per cent of those with a mortgage report that they're under financial stress, and, with interest rates set to only increase in the coming weeks, that stress is only going to grow.

At the same time, the one-in-two people who rent in my community are also under increasing stress and what many would say is unsustainable pressure. Properties are hard to come by, with the national rental vacancy rate at a record low of 0.9 per cent, while, nationally, the cost of rent has increased by 8.2 per cent. Capital cities like Sydney are even worse off, with the average rent increasing by 10.2 per cent in just the last 12 months. Unit rents have increased two per cent over the quarter, to $500 a week—a rate of growth which is double the previous quarter. Indeed, as it currently stands, the average weekly rent in my electorate of North Sydney is actually $561, which is more than 10 per cent higher than the state average.

In this context, then, the social and affordable housing crisis is one that knows no geographical boundaries. Essential workers, families, older women and the most vulnerable in our community need appropriate housing right across our country, and it is for this reason that robust debate regarding this Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 is something we must all commit to in this place.

A recent independent review conducted by the Australian government found that an investment of around $290 billion would be required over the next two decades to meet the shortfall in housing options. Devastatingly, well over 100,000 Australians are homeless on any given night. While we are fortunate to have a number of social housing operators and facilities in North Sydney, these are not nearly enough, and pressure always remains on those that do exist to, potentially, be repurposed, as the land value is so high.

Homelessness is ultimately the result of systemic issues, including the lack of safe and affordable housing in Australia, and it is an issue that none of us in this place can turn our back on. The North Sydney community consistently raises issues of housing affordability and rental stress with me, with many concerned not only for the current residents and the current generation but, importantly, for future generations.

Housing affordability is one of our society's most pressing issues. But let's be clear: this is not a problem that we can solve simply by throwing money at it. Housing affordability is a complex problem that has been building for decades, and, just like climate change, if we're going to make moves forward in this, it requires a transparent, non-political, evidence based process to develop long-term, sustainable solutions.

The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 creates a $10 billion fund, the Housing Australia Future Fund, which, it is proposed, will provide a sustainable and ongoing funding stream, in perpetuity, to build the social and affordable homes Australians need. The objective of the fund is to build 20,000 social and 10,000 affordable homes over the next five years, with the fund expected to also provide $200 million for the repair and maintenance of and improvements to remote Indigenous housing; $100 million for crisis and domestic violence housing; and $30 million for veterans' housing and specialist services.

Additionally, the Australian government is developing a National Housing and Homelessness Plan to help more Australians access safe and affordable housing. It's a 10-year strategy designed to broadly assess issues constraining the current housing system. The national plan provides us with a chance to identify actions needed to address the significant challenges facing the housing and homelessness sectors.

The bills we are debating today will transform the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation into Housing Australia, as the national home for key housing programs, and expand its activities, and will establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, to provide independent advice to government on options to increase housing supply and affordability. The housing legislation package purports to offer a comprehensive suite of measures to get more social and affordable homes on the ground, with the government frequently stating that it signifies the most significant Australian government investment in housing in more than a decade.

Overall, these bills before us today are a step in the right direction. I do, though, fear that the scale of the problem is so daunting that the results they seek to deliver may be just a drop in the ocean. I also fear that political parrying will stop us making progress at all. Ten billion dollars and 30,000 homes over five years sounds like a big deal. But, in reality, we must acknowledge it is barely a drop in the ocean.

In terms of my broader concerns, there are two that I'd like to particularly call out. Firstly, the funding model proposed under this legislation only provides outright grants, so there is potential for rorting. In this context, the oversight structure guiding Housing Australia must be above reproach. We cannot afford for Australians to only lose faith in this system as they perceive that, potentially, consultants or profit-driven developers are the ones who truly win. Secondly, as the legislation current exists, it could overlap with other existing housing assistance schemes like rental assistance, and for this reason I'd like to better understand what the success measures will be for this fund.

This is a large sum of money with what appears to be little accountability as it currently stands. The independent housing affordability council is a good step. It will work with other bodies and make sure we have good data to make informed decisions. It is my hope then that the council will show some bravery, more bravery than many in this place, to assess the role tax policy and settings can play in hindering and assisting housing affordability.

Beyond the scope of the bills before us today, I would like to see the government show more leadership in a number of key areas, including tenants rights reform including no-fault evictions. As stated before, my community of North Sydney has a high concentration of renters, and we should be looking to make renting a viable, long-term option for families who want it. We could encourage this type of development in our community through schemes such as build-to-rent.

I would also encourage this government to actively consider how public policy might best balance differing needs between those who desire more high-density development in established suburbs, with the very real need to build more housing on greenfields sites. There are trade-offs which need to be balanced between quality of life, planned infrastructure and environmental protection—in particular, places like the Cumberland Plain, where endangered bushland unique to Western Sydney is under direct threat from urban growth. I also believe it would be to the benefit of all if this government could give significant consideration to mandatory inclusion zoning to ensure a minimum percentage of affordable housing in new development projects.

To achieve all that may be possible in this space, all levels of government, Housing Australia, registered community housing providers and the private sector must work together. Homelessness Australia, whilst welcoming the new capacity for policy leadership on housing, notes:

… while each body potentially has an important role to play, the legislative package lacks sufficient clarity about how each body relates to each other, and where the responsibility for policy leadership lies, particularly in relation to homelessness.

The current housing shortage is stark—an at-market shortfall of approximately 200,000 dwellings, an affordable shortfall of about 173,000 dwellings and a social housing shortfall of around 103,000 dwellings. These figures are only set to deteriorate further in coming years. Powering Australia has noted that delivering 30,000 social and affordable housing units will only meet a fraction of the unmet demand, which is estimated to be as high as 640,000 units.

A constituent recently called my office in tears because she's been knocked back by more than 50 apartment rental applications around the North Sydney electorate. In desperation, she is using Airbnb as an interim shelter since she lost her home in a house fire in 2022. She's not seeking subsidised or public housing. She has a job, and she can afford to rent. But, in reality, her daughter is living with her dad in Campbelltown, as she cannot provide consistent housing right now, so her family is split apart. She didn't ring to ask for anything. She just needed to know that we knew—that we in this House knew—how challenging the rental market is right now for real people.

In addition to all of this, until recent changes to the National Construction Code, Australia's housing stock has lagged behind that of many countries in terms of its thermal performance and the performance of heating, cooling and other energy systems. Inefficient buildings are unhealthy for occupants and lead to a range of poor respiratory and cognitive outcomes, particularly when inefficient fossil fuels are used indoors for heating or cooking. This fund, and the government's broader housing policy, is the ideal opportunity to ensure all new buildings built under this scheme are obliged to deliver net zero emissions from energy through efficient design, electrification, onsite renewables and the contracting of renewably generated grid power.

Furthermore, I am aware that some state policies are misaligned with the objective of building electrification, such as planning requirements mandating gas connections for new dwellings and, in the case of New South Wales, a BASIX requirement that perversely preferences gas stoves over electric. Clearly, given the urgency and complexity of the changes needed to improve energy performance and reduce emissions, including requirements for workforce developments, there's a real need for central coordination by the federal government.

I have seconded the amendment moved by the member for Fowler, and I wish to thank her for her considered review of this bill. I rise to speak in favour of that amendment because I believe her suggestions would strengthen the bill. Part of that amendment relates to the investment mandate of the bill, which hasn't even been released yet. As it currently stands, there is no certainty as to whether community housing providers must start developing these houses alone or whether the private sector can help contribute. I believe there should be every incentive built into our system to encourage co-investment between the two sectors. Each brings different expertise to the table.

Community housing providers, like St George Community Housing and Link Wentworth, who operate in my electorate, have their finger on the pulse of what is needed where and by whom. The private sector can lead in planning and development. The sectors should go hand in hand. This co-operation also applies to co-investment. It actually boggles my mind that a scheme like the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which started in 2008 during the global financial crisis, is being wound down during our current cost-of-living crisis. While NRAS, as it's known, is not perfect, there is something worth holding onto in its model of co-investment, to ensure that investment continues to flow, from mum-and-dad investors to community housing providers and developers. This is a challenge which requires many shoulders to the wheel.

In finishing, is this legislation perfect? No, it's not. But it's a start, and a start is what we must make. To delay would leave thousands of people languishing. Inaction is the only action that is unacceptable.

I would like to end on a reminder. A house is more than a dwelling. It is easy to get caught up in the size of the public policy problem before us, but, as policymakers in this place, we must remember that a house is a home. A home is a place that provides shelter. A home is where you raise your family. A home is where you create memories. In this context, then, if we can invest in securing more homes for all Australians, we will all be the better for it.

See this speech in context