Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Congratulations to the government for making this housing legislation package a priority. We need a long-term solution to a problem that's developed over many decades. There are supply and structural challenges all along the housing continuum, from crisis accommodation, to social and community housing, to rental housing, to affordable housing and to homeownership. Having access to safe, stable accommodation contributes to the health and vitality of society, allowing people to experience safety and security, engage in school and work, and be active members of society. At the acute end of the continuum, safe housing is a prerequisite for successful support on a range of complex issues, including mental health, drugs and alcohol, and family breakdown.

Before 2022, I spent five years working in community services and saw firsthand the impact of insecure housing on the lives of people who are dealing with complex challenges. I witnessed the way losing secure housing can send people into a spiral: relationship breakdown, social isolation and mental ill health. People living with housing stress—that is, spending more than 30 per cent of their income on housing—live with the worry that they may not be able to sustain their housing. Even in my electorate of Curtin, which is relatively well off, 13 per cent of homeowners and 28 per cent of renters live with housing stress.

Research shows that housing is something that people take for granted until it's threatened. It's not something people say they value until they have experienced it being at risk. More than 9,000 Western Australians are currently experiencing homelessness on any given night, and more than 4,100 people access specialist homelessness services every day in Western Australia. In WA, there were more than 19,000 households on the social housing waitlist, including 4,000 priority applicants, in July 2022—19,000 households. These numbers have been steadily increasing since 2019. The average wait time for a social home is currently 113 weeks. In WA there's a current unmet need of 39,000 social and 19,000 affordable homes. On our current trajectory this will double in the next 15 years. The WA eligibility requirements for social housing are tougher than those in other states, so this probably masks a greater need.

The WA rental market is experiencing a critical shortage of supply. Rental vacancy rates have been sitting below one per cent in Perth and across many of our regions for 20 consecutive months. We would describe a balanced market as being between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent. There has been a 26 per cent increase in rental prices in Perth over two years to July 2022, which is terrifying for the third of my electorate who rent.

These statistics provide some context for the government's housing package. The government's commitment to 20,000 affordable homes and 10,000 social housing homes would meet the current need for WA only, which is about 10 per cent of the national population. It's clearly a good start and a bigger investment in housing supply than we've seen for a while.

The model being proposed for the Housing Australia Future Fund may well be an efficient use of capital if it has the desired effect of stimulating the ongoing growth of social and affordable housing supply. If the structure works, it will at least put in place something that can be added to in the future. To ensure that it does this, it will need to provide community housing providers and other institutional landlords with certainty. There's some work to be done on this.

Firstly, it needs to clearly define 'affordable housing' to clarify that the intent is that this is rental housing aimed at low-income earners. Secondly, it is not clear whether the annual distribution cap of $50 million also operates as a floor. It would provide greater certainty for the market if it was clear that $50 million will be distributed each year, even in years with poor returns. By indicating that government will dip into general revenue if required, investors will know their returns are secure, which would stimulate investment in housing. That's not an amendment that can be made in the House, but I encourage the Senate to consider it.

Similarly, the National Housing Accord, a shared ambition to build one million homes over five years, depends a huge amount on the state and private capital. I fear that it might be more aspirational than realistic. I hope that the WA government will rise to the challenge set by the Commonwealth government to address the housing issues in my home state.

The government guarantee for NHFIC bonds is currently close to its cap. Although default almost never happens, reviewing the cap on total bond finance annually would provide some certainty to community housing providers that they will continue to have access to low-cost capital. Certainly, a long-term commitment to housing is required to smooth out construction cycles. When we are at the peak of the economic cycle, we have the money but not the tradies. When we are at the trough of the economic cycle, we don't have the money.

A welcome part of the housing legislation package is the establishment of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. This independent statutory body can take a long-term view and identify the ongoing need and the most efficient funding models. It will be important that the members of the council act in the overall interest of the country, rather than defending different parts of the housing industry. It will also be important that the council has full independence. Housing a secretariat in Treasury may undermine this and its independence may be better served by being part of Housing Australia. This would give Housing Australia a strategic and research role, rather than just a delivery role.

There are also some issues with the transparency of the process of allocating funds to the states through the COAG Reform Fund. To avoid this being used in a discretionary way to meet other purposes, this allocation should be done through a transparent tender process with clear criteria so funds are allocated according to need and according to where they can be leveraged through co-investment by states.

Reviewing the effectiveness of the package after two years would also be wise. Its success depends significantly on the response from states and the market, and settings may need to be adjusted, especially after the national housing and homelessness plan is finalised and the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement is renegotiated. At that stage, we are likely to have a clearer picture of the need.

Is the housing legislation package enough? Probably not. A $10 billion commitment pales in comparison to the $290 billion the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation said would be required over the next two decades to meet the current and projected shortfall. Research from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute has also argued that an additional 727,000 social housing dwellings are required by 2036 nationwide or an annual average growth of 5.5 per cent to meet future projected need. The 20,000 houses over this period will only meet three per cent of that need. The Grattan Institute advocated the establishment of a $20 billion fund, providing an upfront gap subsidy, as opposed to an annual gap payment. So it's likely to not be enough, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. I'm generally not in favour of borrowing money to spend, but in this case there is such a need for housing in Australia that it should be prioritised, and the Housing Australia Future Fund may be an efficient way to access additional capital for housing by providing acceptable and secure returns on investment.

There are a number of issues that will need to be addressed in implementation, with significant weight probably falling on the new national housing supply and affordability council to provide independent advice on need. In the meantime, I commend the government for committing to start to address this fundamental need.

See this speech in context