Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The cover of the Albanese government's new National housing accord 2022 boasts a stock image of the Wynyard Central apartments, one of the most sought-after addresses in Auckland's Viaduct Harbour. Overseas luxury apartments seem a strange choice to adorn the Australian government's affordability manifesto, but as you delve deeper the document becomes even more dissociated from reality.

If there is one thing the Australian economy knows how to do it's to produce new homes. Home construction is not an emerging or declining industry. We have been world leaders at this for a long period of time. Homeownership has been an intrinsic and admirable feature of Australian society. It is an opportunity for Australians to grow their wealth and to achieve authority over their own futures. To continue this heritage, we need governments to get out of the way of home building, rather than interfere further in the market.

The much heralded new accord sets a target of building one million new homes between 2024 and 2029. This is not exactly a stretch target, because this is on par with performance for pre-pandemic home construction. It is also well under the expected demand for 1.7 million new households that the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation expects will form across Australia over the next decade.

The Albanese government's affordability goals are similarly uninspiring. The government has committed to delivering 10,000 affordable homes in the second half of this decade—or, rather, it has committed to trying to get institutional capital to do this for them. As part of the accord, the states and territories have been asked to deliver a further 10,000 affordable properties. To give a sense of how unambitious that target is, the Queensland government has already committed to deliver half of that total by 2027.

The word 'accord' holds a special place in the lore of the Labor Party, after the much-celebrated Prices and Incomes Accord of the 1980s. While an accord implies an agreement between different groups, it is entirely unclear who has actually signed up to this new policy. The only innovative aspect of this new policy is the $350 million Housing Australia Future Fund, which is intended to incentivise super funds to invest in affordable housing. Despite the promise of a $35,000 sweetener on top of existing subsidised rents, investors have failed to be excited by this new development.

The silence of super funds in response to this policy announcement has been deafening. The Treasurer's new investor round table met last week to try to fill in the blanks as to how institutional investment could help boost housing supply. The deliberation of the Treasurer's new brains trust will not include any input from builders or property builders, but it can draw on the wisdom of five current or former Labor ministers. Super funds run the risk of facing a quasi-nationalisation if they allow governments to lean on them to solve social problems without regard to the impact on their members' returns. The response to this pressure from funds will be a drama worth watching over the coming months.

While the government risks not achieving its modest affordability ambitions, there is also a broader risk in utilising taxpayer funds to draw institutional capital into the housing market. As new greenfield lots become available for sale, what hope would Australian mums and dads have to outbid super funds backed by Commonwealth concessions and with new investment mandates to meet Canberra's objectives? What impact would this have on affordability for those not receiving government rental support? Attempting to artificially entice institutional investment into Australia's housing market has all the foresight of the introduction of the cane toad. It might make an impact on our immediate problems but poses a bigger risk to our wider ecosystem.

Investor interest has never been an obstacle to housing supply in Australia. Supply is currently being constrained not by a lack of capital but by a lack of land. Our states and territories control most of the policy levers which currently restrict supply. The Albanese government's approach makes only fleeting mention of any focus to streamline planning systems and no mention at all of removing inefficient property taxes. The government's new approach to housing has so far established two new strategy documents, two new government bodies, and four new funds and amended financial facilities. More government is never going to be the answer to housing affordability. We need governments to get out of the way and let the Australian construction industry do what it does best: building homes for Australian families. On that note, I wish you a very merry Christmas, Mr Deputy Speaker.