Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the motion moved by the member for Higgins. It is especially poignant to be moving a motion on social housing now that it is National Homelessness Week. There are a number of events being held within this place over the course of the week, and I'd encourage members to attend if they are able to. This is not to say that I think anyone is in an ivory tower, but, for all of us, it would be worth our time to learn a bit more about the what, why and how. It would give members a wake-up call as to why funding social housing is something that we need to start doing yesterday.

Most of us can see the overt signs of homelessness and unstable housing situations within the borders of our electorates. We know that homelessness isn't just those sleeping rough; it's people without a truly fixed address—those who couch surf, even though to those who don't have a stable housing situation due to short-term periodic leases. Whether visible or not, the effects are felt. It affects someone's ability to keep a job, to send their kids to school on time every day, to find a job and to participate in society.

In my state of South Australia, we have a long and proud history of providing social housing, with the South Australian Housing Trust having been created in 1936. It was the nation's first state housing authority, created during the time of a Liberal government in South Australia. Over the long course of history, social housing hasn't been a partisan issue, though—over the course of our history—the extent of its importance has been. Having more stocks of social housing and affordable housing should be an aim of any government, but we know that growth in social and affordable housing certainly stalled over the previous nine years.

I don't want to necessarily put the causation before the correlation—I doubt we would see any degree of remorse from those opposite when the numbers were put to them, in any case. However, last week we saw the member for Deakin, in his contribution to this debate, ride out of the gates to attack Daniel Andrews. Premier Daniel Andrews may be a mortal, but he is someone who, in the heads of the members of the Victorian Liberal Party, appears to live rent free, even during a rental crisis. I suppose there is room for that now, given the vacancy in their heads now the Greens are again frenemies with the Liberal Party and the National Party. Blocking the Housing Australia Future Fund legislation in the other place with new friends—new old friends—I'd like to hope they aren't blocking the legislation for the same reason, but it does make for a very confused coalition of ideals. One side cares about the issue; the other, displayed over nine years in government, could not care less about social and affordable housing. I remember a time when a Liberal MP could say the words 'Labor-Greens coalition' three times, turn around and expect to see that they had summoned a pair of Birkenstocks; now the footwear of their partnership will more closely resemble boat shoes, I suppose. Whatever the footwear in question, it'll be what they are wearing whilst they run away from their responsibility to the Australian people by blocking much-needed funds into social and affordable housing.

Putting a fund in place that provides funds for social housing is important, given we cannot always rely on the better angels of future governments. This is clearly evidenced by the previous government and its lack of care in funding social housing. It had a missed opportunity with HomeBuilder and instead ignored social housing completely. A fund, much like our Future Fund, lasts the test of time and helps to fund unfunded public sector superannuation liabilities. Sovereign funds are not some alien concept. I know the Greens would portray this as playing the market, imagining the Prime Minister in front of his laptop in the wee hours of the morning exclaiming that some kind of digital coin is going to the moon—ludicrous.

We know that, by having a fund which generates a baseline funding level for social housing, no matter the party in government, those funds are earmarked for this purpose so we can avoid what we have seen under nine years of Liberal-National government. We can futureproof social housing against the whims of a future Liberal-National government or Liberal-Green government—who knows. There is always going to be a mechanism allowing for a steady level of investment in social housing, and this can only be a good thing. Every penny beyond that will depend on the economic climate at the time and—as history would suggest—whether there is a Labor government in power at the time. I thank the House.

See this speech in context