Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

My questions to the government relating to the budget are focused around building houses for Australians and the long-term infrastructure commitments that compete against our sector's ability to build more homes. Housing is the biggest short-term and long-term cost-of-living issue in this country. It is tragic that in our country people on moderate incomes who are doing important jobs cannot be certain that they will actually be able to build a future and build a family with secure housing. We need to fix this. It's an issue that everyone cares about—young people in my electorate, such as my Youth Action Committee, as well as people in leading businesses. I ask them, 'What are people talking about in the boardroom?' and they say housing. The unaffordability of housing is a cancer in our society, particularly in Sydney.

I acknowledge that the government has taken action on housing in a number of its budgets. But my question to the government is: why can't it do more in particular areas? I acknowledge that the government has provided some state incentives to build more housing, but the evidence is suggesting that housing approvals are going in absolutely the wrong direction. My concern is that the incentives, which I thoroughly support the government bringing in, are not actually meaningful if the states don't believe they're going to meet them—and it does not look like the majority of states will meet them at this stage. So, my first question to the government is really: shouldn't the government consider strengthening the incentives to the states to deliver on their housing commitments? And that is in terms of, firstly, rental rights, because in my state of New South Wales we have no-fault evictions, which we know undermine rental rights. Secondly, it's about how to strengthen the incentives so that the states approve more homes. It is critical, and I don't believe that the government is doing enough in that space.

The second question I have to the government is: why won't they consider other areas of taxation in their desire to build more homes? I know, for instance, that it has been estimated that reforming stamp duty—which is a state tax but where federal support would be needed to actually make meaningful changes—would, in New South Wales, allow another 300,000 people to be homeowners, if we move from a stamp duty regime to a land tax regime. I'm sure that the government has seen the modelling in relation to this. This is a change that would fundamentally make a difference. Why isn't the government making the case for tax reform on those issues and other issues to make owning a home more achievable for more Australians?

My next question goes to the supply constraints in the housing sector at the moment. I was speaking with a builder the other day when I was at Rose Bay ferry. He's a major builder, and he said: 'We can't get the people. We are having to compete, at the housing level, with the infrastructure level.' I note that in this budget there's $97 billion towards infrastructure investment over the next 10 years. While I support the intent of infrastructure investment, the challenge is that at the moment we are absolutely constrained on the supply side in our ability to deliver housing and infrastructure, and, in that choice, I believe that we need to step into housing first. So my question to the government in relation to this is: why didn't the government consider pulling back on some of its infrastructure investment, at least in the short term, to get through the supply side constraints that we are facing right now in our ability to build new homes?

Finally, I just want to make an observation on infrastructure more broadly. Often people say, 'If you want to spend more money, where would you save it?' The example for me would be in infrastructure spending, but part of that is because we do not have good cost-benefit analysis in relation to the impact of our infrastructure on the economy. Every dollar counts, and I know that the assistant minister probably understands this more than anyone else in the country. Every dollar counts, and if we are not spending the big money in infrastructure well then we are wasting money. A recent review into the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects identified deep concerns with the level of due diligence, lack of data collection and outcomes analysis, and lack of clearly defined expectations for making investment decisions. The review said:

This undermines the Commonwealth's capacity to be an informed investor in land transport infrastructure.

I find it extremely concerning that we are spending money that is driving up the costs of both building housing and building infrastructure but we are doing this on projects that don't have a solid cost-benefit analysis. So my final question to the government is a question I've raised before: why won't the government commit to rigorous cost-benefit analysis of all infrastructure projects that can be compared and then prioritise its investment based on those that have the strongest evidence behind them in making a difference to the Australian economy?

See this speech in context