Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and the two associated bills, which, for simplification, I'll refer to generally as the housing bill. During the election campaign last year in my electorate of Hughes, the biggest issue was the cost of living. The second-biggest issue was housing affordability. This was a priority and concern for young people as well as for their parents and their grandparents, concerned that their children and their grandchildren would be unable to purchase or even rent a home of their own within my electorate.

In my first speech in this place, I spoke of my commitment to addressing housing affordability. My policy framework around this issue arises from my personal ideology as well as lessons learnt from a 25-year legal career spent in planning, property and environmental law, working both for and in the private and public sectors. Ideologically, my commitment to liberalism, civilised capitalism, unleashes the power of the individual and their enterprise while always providing a safety net for those who, despite their best efforts, are unable to cope. This applies to my approach on housing policy.

At the federal government level, we need to facilitate an environment where we as a country deliver broader housing choices and a system that provides greater security of tenure such as longer-term leases for our most vulnerable, many of whom are Australian children and our returned veterans. The greater the number of Australians that own their own home, the greater the ability of governments to facilitate social and emergency housing.

Having spent my former career working in and around the housing sector—including in local government, which is at the coalface of development of planning policy—I say: as well-intentioned as this bill may well be, it will not address the housing crisis. It is unlikely to deliver a single extra dwelling in Australia. This housing bill is not a $10 billion pledge to build houses. This is not a bill to house Australians. This is a bill that establishes a fund. The bill is proposing that the proceeds from the fund will enable the federal government to build 30,000 new houses. It proposes an additional $330 million for ongoing maintenance and repair of acute housing for Indigenous Australians, victims of family violence and veterans.

Again, this sounds like a solution to the crisis. However, it is far from it. First, there is the failure to define key terms in the bill. What is the definition of 'social housing'? What is the definition of 'affordable housing'? What is the definition of 'acute housing'? The bill also omits a major part of the housing affordability problems. It leaves out private homeownership—ways that the federal government can influence, empower and incentivise private homeownership. On the housing continuum, as more Australians own their own home they move out of the private rental market, which in turn frees up supplies for others to move into this space—therefore allowing more resources to be directed to social and emergency housing. Widespread ownership reduces wealth inequality, improves mental health and childhood outcomes, reduces extremism and provides stability for democratic institutions.

Australia's rate of homeownership has been declining since the baby boomer generation bought their homes. At the moment, homeownership amongst Australians under the age of 40 is at levels not seen since 1947. Being able to afford a home is becoming harder and harder for younger Australians. Leaving private homeownership out of its housing policy means the Labor government has failed to understand the way the housing sector in this country works. After nine months in office, the government's housing agenda is in tatters.

On the face of it, allocating $10 billion to build houses sounds like a solution to Australia's housing crisis. The proposition, however, is that the government first borrows the $10 billion, invests that $10 billion and then uses any return on investment to assist with housing. Of course, the underlying assumption is that the interest gained will be greater than the interest paid. This is lazy and irresponsible economics. The fund provides no certainty as to future returns. It is wholly reliant on the financial performance of the fund's investments in equities and other financial products. Furthermore, increased government borrowing will only add to inflationary pressures in the economy, leading again to higher interest rates. In fact, the IMF has already warned the government that the proliferation of such funds should always be avoided. This is economic trickery and lazy policymaking. It is a fictitious revenue scheme. It does not represent real spending on housing. These are the reasons that I do not support this bill.

Furthermore, the government has not addressed the underlying issues around housing affordability. It is disappointing that the Labor government has been intellectually lazy and, by these bills, demonstrated its failure to understand the drivers behind housing in Australia; its failure to understand how the various state planning systems feed into the national system; and its failure to empower local governments to deliver at a local level. After nine months, the government's housing policy demonstrates that it is bereft of ideas and unable to even commence the process to address our housing shortage.

The Labor government had the opportunity to develop sound policy based on the recent report of the parliamentary inquiry into housing affordability and supply in Australia. Headed The Australian dream, the report identified the underlying issues leading to housing affordability. They are: a lack of supply of housing stock; oppressive state and local planning restrictions, as well as taxes; and the difficulty—indeed, almost the impossibility—for most first-home buyers in Australia to save the deposit. The recommendations that came out of the report were considered, clear and concise. They've set forward a clear path for a good policy to be developed for housing affordability. In that regard, I commend the speech earlier today in this place by the member for Sturt, who sat on that committee.

Australia has more usable land than any other continent in the world outside of the penguins of the South Pole. We have one of the least densely populated countries in the world, with some of the highest average weekly earnings and one of the highest minimum wages in the world. Housing should be easily accessible and affordable. However, with an underlying lack of supply of land, housing has become almost impossible for many Australians.

The federal government can and should incentivise state and local governments to increase urban density in appropriate locations using an empowered community framework such as those which are being rolled out throughout Europe. State and local governments can create more density in appropriate locations—specifically those well serviced by underused transport infrastructure. This should be done by allowing local communities to negotiate for higher densities in return for better infrastructure and more convenience and in a way that protects and preserves the character of surrounding areas. The objective of policies such as these is to ensure that communities are open to higher-density experience, an uplift in value and improved infrastructure.

Planning policies also need to be addressed. The federal government can provide incentive payments to state and local governments to encourage the adoption of better planning and property administration policies. Cutting through the red tape of planning is essential for the provision of more dwellings. Some analysis has shown that, in some places in Australia, planning restrictions are responsible for up to 67 per cent of the cost of housing. Analysis from Finland has shown that increasing housing supply benefits those on low incomes the most. Flexible planning systems like those in Texas are driving economic growth through lower levels of traffic congestion and more efficient allocation of how land is used. This has led to companies such as Tesla, Facebook and Intel leaving California for Texas. Planning reforms in Tokyo saw homelessness reduced by 80 per cent over 10 years, while highly regulated planning systems in San Francisco have seen the emergence of tent cities with people who cannot find homes. There is, therefore, abundant evidence that planning restrictions substantially boost the cost of housing. The federal government has the tools available to incentivise state and local governments to introduce and implement better planning policies. That was, again, an opportunity lost in this housing bill.

Land use policy is primarily the responsibility of state and local governments. Nevertheless, the Australian government can and should play a useful role in coordination, guiding and improving incentives to other governments. Specifically it should provide financial assistance to state and local governments to encourage better planning policy as well as administration of that policy. We should reward better planning policy administration—for example, the streamlining of approvals or bringing infrastructure contributions in line with social costs such as value capture and sharing. Government policy could institute a grant system that pays states and localities for delivering more housing supply and affordable housing. Grants could be in the form of cash or infrastructure. Again, this has been a missed opportunity in this legislation.

Local and state taxes and charges are passed on to home purchasers. This is substantially increasing the cost of housing. In New South Wales they are inappropriately called 'developer contributions'. They are not paid for by developers. They are, however, just a tax imposed on a first home buyer or a home purchaser. The largest barrier to entry for young Australians is saving for the deposit. On all the various measures, the time it takes a worker on an average wage to save for a deposit has increased, from a period that could be measured in months to one that can now be measured in decades.

The Labor government has again missed an opportunity in its housing policy and bill—to allow first home buyers to use their superannuation balance as collateral for a home, without using the funds themselves as a deposit. This again was one of the very sensible recommendations from the Australian dream report, which has been wilfully ignored by this government. The greater the number of Australians that own their own home, the greater the ability of governments to facilitate social and emergency housing. The intention of this bill may be to facilitate social and emergency housing; however, for all of the reasons I've just outlined, it will not.

What has always happened in the housing space is that, when a government has an intention to fund social and affordable housing, it sets up a program, funds that program and then, through recurrent expenditure, funds whatever it is it wants to fund. That is not what is being done here. This is a blatant attempt to try to keep this fund off the budget's bottom line. In that being done, there is absolutely no certainty that any money will ever—certainly not in this term of government—go to the intended recipients.

I have outlined many alternatives available to the federal government if it wishes to apply some intellectual rigour to addressing the housing affordability crisis through real and practical solutions. The government, through its housing policy and these bills, has demonstrated that it does not. This is a fiscally irresponsible bill. It may be well intentioned; however, it is lazy economics and will not produce the outcomes that it seeks. For the reasons stated, I oppose this bill.

See this speech in context