Fiona Phillips (Gilmore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I first raised this with the New South Wales minister in October last year. In December I stood with local Labor candidates Katelin McInerney and Liza Butler to announce that a Minns government would support Safe Shelter Shoalhaven with $250,000 to keep their doors open. But after months of the government knowing the dire situation the shelter was in, the Liberals waited until the 11th hour, the day the Shoalhaven shelter was to close, before stepping in with a short reprieve until June, just far enough to get it out of an election cycle. Salt does more than just run this shelter. The Salt store delivers free food, clothing and furniture to more than 1,100 families weekly. Realising what a gap the New South Wales government had left in emergency and temporary housing, Salt began actively seeking out private rentals and managing them to provide housing for the homeless. The Salt assisted housing program has over 35 long-term homes which they sublet to people in need. They want to do more but they need more support because, on their own, they simply cannot provide enough support for our homeless, such is the demand for and lack of affordable housing.

The housing crisis affects everyone. The worker shortage on the south coast is dire. One of the main issues is even if people want to move here to take up work, they most often cannot find housing. I have heard story after story of people not taking up jobs because of this. I have heard the extraordinary lengths employers will go to to secure housing for prospective staff members to entice them to move to the coast for work.

We have many exciting road and community infrastructure projects happening on the coast: a new hospital at Moruya and an upgraded Shoalhaven hospital at Nowra. Where will the hundreds and hundreds of additional frontline workers for the hospitals live? As the federal member for Gilmore, I have been raising the dire housing situation on the south coast for years, first with the then shadow minister for housing and homelessness, Jason Clare, and with the now Minister for Housing, Julie Collins. There have been many visits to the south coast to meet with homelessness providers. You only have to visit to get an understanding of the immense problem. I tried the former ministers as well but, no surprises, nothing came from it. That was why, in the lead-up to the 2022 federal election, I was delighted and relieved to see Labor's commitments around affordable and social housing. Today, as a proud member of the Albanese Labor government, I am happy to be speaking on these bills because I know these bills in time will lead to intergenerational reform, change lives and create a better future for everyone.

But today also has a bitter taste because apparently it wasn't enough that the former Liberal-National government took no action to address our housing crisis; apparently it wasn't enough that at a state level the Liberals and Nationals have left community housing and homelessness services in shambles with funding cuts and neglect. No. Today, the Liberals and Nationals have decided they want to inflict even more damage and, worst of all, with the help of the Greens party. They are fighting against the millions of people this bill will help, people like the young mum in Worrigee and the dozens of others contacting my office every week, or the 50 people in Moruya living in a campground with nowhere else to go. They are fighting against people fleeing domestic violence, our veterans, First Nations people, so people around the country who need a home. It is absolutely appalling, and every member of the Liberals, The Nationals and the Greens should be ashamed. Clearly, Labor is the only party willing to do every single thing we can to address the housing crisis with the biggest investments we have ever seen.

The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 will establish the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, with annual dispersements used to fund social and affordable housing and other acute housing needs. It will provide a source of funding to support increased social and affordable housing as well as fund other acute housing needs for remote Indigenous communities, women, children and veterans.

The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 establishes the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council as an independent statutory advisory body. The council will inform the Commonwealth's approach to housing policy by delivering independent advice to the government on housing supply and affordability. I am pleased that the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council will play a leadership role in bringing all levels of government together to work through the myriad issues and get that boost in affordable and social housing happening where it is needed most.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 facilitates the transition of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to Housing Australia, extends the Commonwealth guarantee of Housing Australia's liabilities, and expands its activities to manage delivery of social and affordable housing under the Housing Australia Future Fund. Extending the Commonwealth guarantee recognises the importance of the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator and Housing Australia's role in continuing to offer community housing providers low-cost and longer-term finance.

So many local organisations—our councils, community housing, our homeless provider network, our homelessness task force—have good solutions. But it needs leadership from the federal government. For the first time the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council will be the vehicle for that leadership to drive home policy and reforms to assist the biggest boost in affordable and social housing.

I would like to sincerely thank every person that has contacted me with their own housing story. The strength they showed just to ask for help has given me strength to battle on with this enormous change, so that it might help the thousands of local people that need help. To everyone working and volunteering in the affordable and social housing space and supporting our homeless: you are the brave ones too. You have never given up, despite atrocious circumstances. The Albanese government will never stop trying to do what is right for you. I will never stop trying to do what is right for you. While we can't undo the last nine years, we can make the next nine years better. It's going to be a long road, but these bills are a sensible and much-needed step in the right direction.

I say today to all members of the opposition and the Greens: don't get in the way of the people of the South Coast getting the affordable homes they deserve. Do the right thing and support these bills. Our community cannot afford to wait any longer because of your political games. I commend the bills to the House.

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

I'm a bit worried, after listening to the previous speaker and to the minister who introduced the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills, that the government is offering these bills as a solution to a problem it doesn't quite fully understand. The assumption is there is a market failure in homebuilding. But the failure doesn't sit with the market; it sits with government. If there's one thing the Australian economy knows how to do, it's build homes. Home construction is not an emerging or declining industry, and we have been world leaders at this for a very long time. We have millions of Australians who want to buy homes or rent homes. We have thousands operating in the property sector keen to build homes. We have ample capital that wants to be invested. Yet we find ourselves in the midst of an ongoing affordability and rental crisis in most parts of the country. What we really need is for governments to get out of the way of homebuilding rather than interfere further in the market.

These bills have been wrapped up in many empty platitudes about this being the beginning of a golden era for Australian homebuilding. But behind the rhetoric these bills essentially do three things: they create the Housing Australia Future Fund; they rename NHFIC to Housing Australia, making some modest changes to the operations of that agency; and they formally establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council.

The coalition has in-principle concerns for the establishment of funds such as the Housing Australia Future Fund due to the increased debt burden on the Commonwealth. The Housing Australia Future Fund will be an additional $10 billion in borrowing, requiring hundreds of millions in interest repayments each year. With a 10-year government bond rate at approximately 3.6 per cent and rising, the $10 billion drawdown will cost the Commonwealth approximately $360 million per annum in interest on the debt. The IMF has already warned the government that the proliferation of these sorts of funds is something that should be avoided. At latest count, this means $45 billion in off-budget spending from the Labor government—a staggering amount of money. And all this has inflationary pressure and will have an impact on the cost of living for Australian households.

The shadow minister made an important point this morning: had the fund been established in the last financial year, the Commonwealth would have lost approximately $370 million in addition to the approximate $400 million in interest on borrowing. This total loss of approximately $770 million would mean not one dollar would be available for social and affordable housing projects under this scheme, if the conditions of the last 12 months were repeated over the next 12 months.

Labor's plan to build 30,000 homes over five years is less per year than the coalition delivered in social and affordable housing through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. The stark reality of the government's policy is that we could easily get to the end of this term of government and have none of these 30,000 homes delivered. In contrast, it is important to remember that the policies introduced by the former coalition government have supported more than 300,000 Australians into homeownership.

Clause 41(1) of the bill provides the housing minister, Treasurer and finance minister—or the responsible ministers, as referred to in the bill—the power to provide the Future Fund Board with written directions regarding the performance of its investment functions and the exercise of its powers. Direction under clause 41(1) is not subject to disallowance or subject to sunsetting.

The Housing Australia Future Fund investment mandate may comprise of multiple directions issued at different times. Given that the investment mandate is yet to be released, it's hard to scrutinise the fund's capability to actually deliver the government's election commitments. Without an investment mandate, this legislation is effectively just an empty shell, with all aspects of the operations of the fund likely to be contained in the investment mandate, which has not been released publicly yet. It is also customary for the investment mandate to undergo a public consultation process, which of course has not occurred to date.

With this in mind, the coalition will not be supporting the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. Of course, many stakeholders have outlined concerns with the bill, including the limited capacity for conferring grants under the Housing Australia Future Fund and failure to define key terms. I've worked in the property sector and I know that a lot of the key terms that are used in different legislation and regulations really do make or break it. We haven't yet got a definition of what social housing is and of what affordable housing is. And what definition is going to be used for acute housing? There are also, of course, the limitations on the annual drawdown, which has been highlighted by some stakeholders. There is no mechanism or performance criteria to assess the effectiveness of the grants and there is no guarantee that grants started under the Housing Australia Future Fund will continue. Importantly, there is the small number of social and affordable homes that the fund will actually provide.

An aspect of the government's approach that I find odd is the intense focus on just one element of the housing continuum. I'm going to attempt a metaphor here, or an analogy, so bear with me while I torture this for a bit. Consider Australia's housing market like a swimming pool. There's the shallow end—this is where people often start out and perhaps need to remain, if they need assistance. And then there's the deep end, where you'll find those who can confidently move around without support. When the supply of housing is meeting demand, it's like a pool that's full of water: everyone's comfortable no matter in which part of the pool they are swimming, and whether they are a new home buyer or a renter or a social housing tenant, or even someone who finds themselves in need of emergency accommodation. But, when the market gets tight, when the water level starts going down, the natural way the market works means that those in the shallow end—those needing rental assistance and those receiving government support—are the ones who'll be first to feel the pain. Conversely, when the pool gets filled, the water goes up from the deepest point.

It seems to me a pretty odd approach for the federal government to be targeting a very limited element of the whole market and neglecting the bigger picture and the bigger problems. Saying that the government will focus on well-located social and affordable homes, even going so far as to identify the professions and the genders of people they want in these properties, is as mad as saying you're going to put a litre of water into the pool to take care of the particular needs of one section of the shallow end. You may fill the pool up from the shallow end or the deep end, and, as long as it is adequately filled, it doesn't matter. Just focus on filling it up as quickly and efficiently as possible. What I'm trying to say is that the affordability and access issues are all issues of supply.

If you want an example of how surface-level the Albanese government's approach to our nation's housing shortage is, you only have to look at the cover of their National housing accord, which boasts a stock image of Wynyard Central apartments, one of the most sought-after addresses in Auckland's Viaduct Harbour. Overseas luxury apartments seem to me a strange choice to adorn the Australian government's affordability manifesto, but it is emblematic of how their approach is more about style than substance: pretty pictures and pretty words but no real solutions to the core problem.

The much-heralded new accord sets a target to build a million new homes from 2024-29. This is not exactly a 'stretch target', given that this is par performance for pre-pandemic home construction. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, the entity that one of these bills seeks to rebrand and that will be relied upon for advice by the government moving forward, is expecting that 1.7 million new households will be formed in Australia over this period. So we've got the Labor government saying that they will create the settings for a million new homes, but the experts are saying, 'Excuse me, Minister; we will actually need 1.7 million just to stay even.' The Labor government's goals are unambitious and dangerously so. Even if they are met, housing in Australia will be significantly less affordable at the end of this decade than it is today.

I'll turn my comments now to the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. These bills provide for the establishment of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council as a statutory body. The explanatory memorandum has estimated that this will come at a cost of $4.4 million each year over the forward estimates. Given how much external help this government clearly needs to understand this area of public policy, I welcome this move. But I do warn the government not to fill this council with union reps, academics or former Labor members. I note that the Treasurer's new Investor Roundtable, which is informing policy in this space, contains five current or former Labor ministers. On this body we need people from industry, people who understand the planning and tax obstacles that prevent the market from meeting demand.

The coalition will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill, but we'll seek an amendment to remove schedule 4 from this bill. As I've outlined, we're opposing the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill.

The bills will also rename NHFIC to Housing Australia. This rebranding exercise is estimated to cost half a million dollars, but I'm sure it will cost a lot more than that all told. This is largely a vanity exercise, I feel, trying to recast NHFIC as a Labor initiative. But it is important to reflect on the short history of NHFIC and all that it has achieved to date. NHFIC was established by the former coalition government to operate two key activities: the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, providing cheaper and longer-term finance to registered community housing providers. NHFIC has been a landmark coalition achievement and, since its creation, it has delivered $2.9 billion of low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings, saving $470 million in interest payments to be reinvested in more affordable housing. It has unlocked 6,900 social, affordable and market dwellings through the coalition's $1 billion infrastructure facility, to make housing supply more responsive to demand.

It's important to remember that investor interest has never been an obstacle to housing supply in Australia. Supply is currently not being constrained 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, and the Albanese government's approach to housing only makes fleeting reference to any focus on streamlining planning systems, not to mention the removal of inefficient property taxes. The minister has celebrated the re-establishment of regular meetings of the Housing and Homelessness Ministerial Council. I'm sure there will be many good things discussed between these ministers, who are primarily responsible in their jurisdictions for building regulations and public housing stock; however, where we really need ministerial collaboration and discussion to boost housing supply is between state planning ministers and treasurers. Without Commonwealth-led reform in the areas of planning and property taxes, we will never get housing supply in this country to a point where it meets demand. This is where I would encourage the government to invest their time and taxpayers' money.

Far from being a $10 billion investment in social housing, as we heard in question time today and from the earlier speakers—it's certainly not a $10 billion investment in social housing—this is a structure to invest the potential returns of borrowed money. As the shadow minister pointed out, there is no guarantee on that return. In fact, the Future Fund lost money last year, so we have no way of telling how much this investment will be or how many homes it will create, but we do know it will be no time soon and it will be nowhere near enough.

I'll finish with the point I try to convey to the minister whenever she reaches the dispatch box in question time: more government is never going to be the answer to housing affordability. 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. The Commonwealth has a role to play here, but it certainly isn't this. We need governments to get out of the way and let the Australian construction industry do exactly what it does best: building homes for Australian families.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member opposite got one thing right in that speech, and that is that the situation the country faces today is a failure of government—most particularly a failure of nine years of failed Liberal government. I rise proudly in support of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, which will get more Australian families in safe and secure housing. This is a keystone policy of the Australian government that will provide a comprehensive suite of measures to get more social and affordable houses built. It is by far the biggest single investment in housing in more than a decade. This bill provides an ambitious housing and reform agenda to ensure more Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home. With the passage of this bill, the Albanese government is ensuring the next stage of our broader housing reform agenda.

This Labor government has already achieved great things in such a small time in government. We have reached a landmark National Housing Accord which provides a shared ambition, with the state and territory governments of all political colours, to build one million well-located homes over five years from 2024. We've provided $350 million in additional Commonwealth funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes over five years from 2024, matched by the states with another 10,000 homes. We've widened the remit of the National Housing and Homelessness Plan to set short-, medium- and long-term goals to improve housing outcomes across Australia. We've implemented the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which has already helped more than 1,600 Australians into a home, including some in my own electorate. And we've provided the Help to Buy program, which will reduce the cost of buying a home and help people get into a home sooner. This government understands that safe, secure and affordable housing is core business for government. It is central to ensuring security and dignity for Australians.

We have made a very good start as a government in tackling the housing crisis that affects so many Australians, but there is so much work to do. Currently across Australia, too many people are struggling to achieve secure and affordable housing. With growing rents and an investor-centric housing market, homelessness is something too many Australians are facing or experiencing. We all know there is a severe housing crisis affecting our country, but knowing it is not enough. You've got to do something about it, and that's what we are doing on this side of the House.

We have heard of the pressures in Sydney, where ramshackle buildings are selling for prices in the millions and our young people are unable to compete in an investor-rich market. Closer to home, in Hobart and the outer suburbs of Hobart, a deep rental crisis is causing more homelessness than has ever been experienced before in Tasmania, which was once known for its affordability. It is not unusual for Tasmanian applicants to line the street at house inspections in a vain attempt to break into the market and find somewhere to live. More broadly, even in our regions we are experiencing housing stress. Rents in rural towns of my own electorate, such as Fingal, are going through the roof, and many are struggling with the cost-of-living pressures that are imposed alongside these rents. In seaside towns such as Bicheno, the prevalence of short-stay accommodation, which the state Liberal government has shamefully failed to appropriately regulate, means locals cannot find housing and businesses are struggling to recruit workers because people coming into the town are unable to find somewhere to live. So, if those opposite aren't convinced by the social equity arguments, they should be convinced by the economic arguments. Homelessness is affecting business. Business is crying out for action, and we are providing it.

Housing is one of the issues that constituents seek my assistance with the most. It is testament to the grave failures of nine years of failed Liberal state government, because the Liberals talk a big game but they simply do not do the hard work. The Tasmanian housing minister, Mr Guy Barnett, bragged last year that the Liberals would build 1,169 homes in 2022-23. They've delivered 142. In the middle of a housing crisis, the state Liberal government spent $7 million less on housing in 2021-22 than in the previous year. That illustrates the state Liberals' commitment to housing, and it reflects the lack of commitment shown by those opposite when they occupied the government benches.

The personal stories can be tough to hear. David, from Bridgewater, has been trying to find secure, suitable and affordable housing so he can resume visitation with his children. Bree, from Herdsmans Cove, is a full-time carer for her mother. Their private rental is not only unsuitable for disability needs but increasingly unaffordable, with higher rent. Bree has been on the social-housing waiting list for a disability modified property for four years. There's a constituent in the north of my electorate, who I won't name, who is currently living with her former partner in circumstances that can only be described as volatile and who has been on the housing waiting list since October 2021. This is a person who feels she has no option but to remain in a potentially dangerous living situation or simply risk homelessness and be on the streets. That's what she has to weigh up. She has no other option available to her. What a terrible choice for any person to have to make. This situation should not be happening in Australia in 2023, and this Labor government is determined to repair the damage of nine years of failed Liberal government neglect.

It takes a broad, intergovernmental approach to deal with this housing crisis that is affecting so many thousands of Australians. With this bill, the Australian government is taking bold steps to uphold its end of the bargain and take serious action on social and affordable housing across the country. This bill is an ambitious but achievable housing legislation package that provides a comprehensive suite of measures to build more social and affordable homes in Australia. It enables one of the most significant investments from the Australian government in a generation, and it is a raft of legislation that we should be proud to vote in support of, and we are. It will vastly improve Australia's housing stock and the lives of everyday Australians.

This legislation implements the Australian government's commitments to establish the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, provide a stream of funding to ensure there is a pipeline of new social and affordable housing for Australians in need, transform the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation into Housing Australia as the national home for key housing programs and expand its activities, and establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent advice to government on ways to increase housing supply and affordability. But this bill goes further than being just about a bricks-and-mortar fund. It tackles real issues that are being faced by everyday Australians. It supports the quiet Australians who need us most, including First Nations Australians, those affected by and seeking to escape family and domestic violence, and our veterans.

Under this bill, $200 million will be provided over five years for the improvement of housing in Indigenous communities. This is a crucial act as we continue to seek to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and to improve health and social outcomes in remote Indigenous communities. We are earmarking $100 million for housing options for women and children impacted by family and domestic violence and for older women at risk of homelessness. Too many women in this country feel that they cannot escape family and domestic violence because of the uncertainty they have in finding safe, secure and affordable housing. I gave a personal anecdote on this earlier. Women should not have to decide whether to remain in a domestic violence situation with their kids or risk homelessness in escaping it. This government is working hard under the fantastic leadership of the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, the member for Franklin, to ensure that this is not the case. We are working hard to ensure there is safe and secure housing for women who need to escape family and domestic violence.

We know that the population group most effected by homelessness in modern Australia is older women. Far too often they are left with nothing, following a divorce or breakdown of a relationship. They are all too often pushed into homelessness as a result, often completely blindsided by the circumstances. This must change, and under the Housing Australia Future Fund it will change.

This fund will also take care of our veterans. Under this fund, $30 million will be provided by the Australian government to build housing and to fund specialist services for veterans experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. I note the opposition person at the dispatch box, the member for Herbert, is a veteran himself, and I thank him for his service. He would know all too well, through his work with the veterans community, the pressures veterans find themselves under. I know you are part of the coalition, Member for Herbert; do what you can to get your people over the line on this. This is supporting veterans. People who served our country and fought to protect it should not be left behind. The government take veterans affairs seriously, and we are taking steps to address and prevent veterans homelessness.

As I've said before, this bill is about more than just bricks and mortar. It's about building safe and secure affordable housing for those who need it most, with services and assistance that will actively prevent homelessness and the risk of homelessness. I will be proudly voting in support of this legislation. I call on those in the coalition opposition, the Greens and the broader crossbench to vote in support of this legislation. Failure to do so would be a massive step backwards for housing security in this country. Stop the politicking. Stop the attempts to delay its implementation. We've waited nine years; we can't waste another day.

I refuse to be the person who votes against housing security in remote Indigenous communities and outback Australia. I refuse to be the person who votes against a mother escaping family violence achieving safe and secure housing. I refuse to vote against an older woman at risk of homelessness finding secure housing to restart her life in safety. I refuse to vote against a veteran who has served this country with pride finding safe and secure housing and a home and the support services that they need. I refuse to vote against this bill which provides so much opportunity and hope for the future of housing affordability and security in this country. I will be supporting this bill and I hope everyone in this place will too.

From the outset, this government pledged that we would not waste a day in delivering an agenda which would get more people into safe and secure affordable homes. With this bill we are staying true to our promise. For perhaps the first time in Australian history, we have a prime minister and a minister for housing and minister for homelessness who have personal, lived experience of social housing. The Prime Minister and the member for Franklin spent their early foundational years in affordable housing. My own parents lived in a council flat during my infancy. We understand the importance of affordable housing because we have lived experience of it.

I say to those opposite and to those on the crossbench: do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Right now, across this country, thousands of people need the support this legislation will provide. With the passage of this bill, the mother seeking to escape family violence, with her children, will be able to do so, and she won't be left to fend for herself on the streets. With the passage of this bill, the veteran who served this country with pride will be given the dignity and respect they deserve, with access to safe and affordable housing. With the passage of this bill, young people will for the first time in such a long time have access to the property market that they simply have never had before and perhaps thought was forever out of reach. They will be able to achieve the increasingly elusive Australian dream of homeownership. I commend this bill to the House and I call upon all members' support for its passage.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Late last year I visited a school in Goldstein to speak to the students. After the event, one of the children in year 5 approached me to ask about inflation and when I thought it would stop rising. She said, 'My mum and dad are really worried. They are fighting, and I am worried we might lose our house.' In general, Goldstein is a well-off community, but not everyone is comfortable. This exchange illustrates how the cost and supply of housing, coupled with cost-of-living issues cut across demographics. Young, low-income and single people, especially older women, struggle to enter the market. Those who are in the market are often saddled with enormous mortgages and the impact of rising interest rates, as we're seeing now. Unfortunately, many who bought into an inflated market are now struggling with increasing rates.

Young families and couples, even with both adults working, particularly in suburbs in Goldstein like Bentleigh, McKinnon, Highett, Cheltenham and Hampton East with median house prices of between $1.2 and $1.8 million, are forced to resort to crystal ball gazing now, while the Reserve Bank issues opaque guidance and its governor briefs investment bankers behind closed doors rather than providing clarity to the public. While this may fly in the face of perception of Goldstein, housing stress is high, with very low social housing stock. In the city of Glen Eira, for example, more than 42 per cent of houses are paying high mortgage repayments and almost 47 per cent are paying what is defined as high rental payments. More than a third of renting households are paying more than 30 per cent of their income on rent. Renters, an increasingly large proportion of the Australian population, largely can't access the kinds of decades-long leases available in Europe that provide stability of accommodation. Instead, they are forced into bidding wars for often below-par housing.

In some of the wealthier precincts in my electorate, there are older women, separated from their long-time partners, who have a house but don't have the income to maintain it. In one such precinct, a four-bedroom house recently came up for rent. It couldn't be heated properly, there was significant water damage and it had not been repaired between tenants. For all that, 50 family groups were so desperate to get a roof over their heads that they all turned up to make applications. In addition, few of our older rented homes are fit for purpose and there are few incentives for landlords to make the improvements that would do much to help us to get to net zero. Landlords get tax relief if a stove breaks down and they replace it but nothing if they seek to improve the quality of the appliances or the energy efficiency of the rental property they own. This is a hole in our tax laws, which have become a general no-go zone in the discussion about housing policy.

As you will have gathered, I see this government's initiative on housing as a start but not a full solution. The policy provides for 30,000 social and affordable homes in five years, plus another 10,000 affordable and well-located homes delivered between the federal government, the states, local government and institutional investors via a housing accord. Yet we need to build 36,000 houses per year until 2036 just to catch up with demand. This puts the 6,000 social and affordable homes proposed per year—and we have to find the land, people and materials to build them—into perspective. The government's budget also has each home costing just over $68,000.

Lack of housing, both social and affordable, is a particular problem for one very big cohort: women. Older women are at greater risk of homelessness than any other group. According to a 2020 report by the Housing for the Aged Action Group and Social Ventures Australia, the number of older women at risk of finding themselves without a home was 405,000. According to the Mercy Foundation, women over 55 are at great risk of financial and housing insecurity due to systemic and compounding factors like lack of superannuation, working part-time or casually throughout their lives, taking time out of the workforce to care for family, bearing the brunt of the gender pay gap, an increasingly unaffordable private rental market and age discrimination. The proposed Housing Australia Future Fund specifies 4,000 homes for women and children fleeing domestic violence and older women on low incomes at risk of homelessness. This is welcome but it's inadequate. It is just one per cent of the women identified by the Mercy Foundation as being at risk.

Labor went to the election promising to fund the HAFF off-budget to the tune of $10 billion. The government estimates the fund will generate an annual surplus of $500 million to spend. This is subject to the vagaries of the investment market. According to authoritative advice to my office, there is the risk that the amount of money available to the fund is far less than the land value required, the build costs and debt required versus the income yield and capital growth of the fund. In short, whether the fund is underfunded remains a reasonable question that also raises a second one: will the government guarantee the fund if there's a shortfall?

There is also the key question of governance. What does the government's claim of independence for the new council really mean? Strong oversight and clear guidelines for any grants paid are critical for the integrity of the fund and public confidence in it. We don't want this to be at risk of another colour-coded spreadsheet exercise.

The questions for the government and the minister are many. There are many bodies involved, and experience tells us that opens the way to blame- and responsibility-shifting. What will be the lines of accountability to deliver the number of homes proposed? Why does the National Housing and Homelessness Plan not sit with one of the new bodies being created under this package? Will the fund capital be sufficient to fund delivery, and is it to be a permanent capital base? What happens after the first five years of the fund's operation? We need more detail. My office has had discussions with the minister's office on these matters, and I am grateful for that engagement. I would argue, though, that these questions and potential gaps in this legislative package need to be addressed before it passes both houses.

The legislation appears to provide for many owners and stakeholders, which makes it even more important that the funding decisions, approvals and independent advice by the council are genuinely independent and that reporting requirements to the parliament are regular, timely and transparent. Unusually, to my eye, the legislation proposes that a member of Treasury sit on the independent council. Treasury has the personnel and funding to brief the council, yet the council doesn't have its own internal resources—which means it runs the risk of being dependent on lopsided advice from a conflicted source. The council needs its own source of advice, I would argue, and the ability, staffing and funding to commission its own independent research data and analysis. This is not just a problem in this instance; it's a problem for other independent boards appointed by the government to provide supposedly independent advice, the Reserve Bank board being one example.

At a minimum I have argued to the minister's office that we need the following: that the forthcoming 10-year National Housing and Homelessness Plan have in-built regular review requirements, with reference to this legislative package and its interim impact, every two years; that the minister report to parliament at the above intervals and table the outstanding shortfall of social and affordable rental housing; that the discretion of the minister be limited in relation to disbursements from the fund, and that there are clear guidelines for grants paid; and that the fund be maintained at the end of five years at a minimum. I understand that the government's trying to futureproof the fund so that it exists in perpetuity, and that this is a difficult task given the scale of the problem.

It's also important that all housing built or upgraded via the fund must meet best practice levels on energy efficiency with a seven-star rating, not just that housing built under the accord. The government has climate change and addressing the housing crisis at the top of its agenda. Whatever the complexities of dealing with state governments and community housing organisations about delivery of this plan, the issue of energy efficiency should not be ignored. Too many of our homes are already not fit for purpose. Renters and owners on lower incomes either cannot get or do not have the resources to upgrade their homes or rental accommodation. And then, as we're seeing now, their energy bills bite into their household budgets even more than they should. We'll also be making it even harder to get to the target of 43 per cent by 2030, let alone net zero.

Further, I argue that the body tasked with providing independent advice is genuinely given this responsibility and enshrined with the powers to do so, and that the need for a national regulatory system is addressed. Why is this responsibility of one of these bodies not being set up to achieve this? Is it not important, as we're saying we're taking housing seriously as a national issue, that there is also a regulatory system to deliver it? We need to ensure that state and local governments are incentivised to match new social and affordable housing targets and are facilitated to partner with institutional investors.

Lastly, these bills need a specific gender lens and a gender impact statement with specific reference to affirmative action for women. The Housing Affordability Fund must urgently address the compounding disadvantage for women.

Overall, it's a great aspiration to tackle the housing crisis. I will support this package in light of that, because something has to give, but I ask the government to take on board these remarks, gathered and synthesised from experts and key stakeholders, because the genuine feedback is that this package is full of holes.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My electorate of Corangamite is magnificent in its natural beauty, but beneath the surface there are housing challenges—challenges made worse by nine years of gross inaction by the former coalition government. Business owners across the Surf Coast and the Bellarine Peninsula tell me that a lack of available houses is making it harder to attract workers. And then there is the growing number of single mums with children, and women in their 50s, living in their cars, moving from house to house and relying on the generosity of friends and family to put a roof over their heads. Jenny is one such single mum who shared her very challenging story with me. She was couch surfing with her children, relying on friends for help, and sporadically living in her car. We supported Jenny to find a safe place to live, but everybody deserves a roof over their head, a place to call home. That's why the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 is so important.

The Albanese Labor government recognises the urgent need for a comprehensive housing plan for the nation. We recognise that we must act now. Unlike the coalition, Labor went to the last election with an ambitious housing reform agenda to ensure more Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home. We said we won't waste a day in delivering that agenda, which is why with this legislation we are implementing a number of our housing commitments. The package is a comprehensive suite of measures which will enable one of the most significant Australian government investments in housing in a generation.

We will establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent advice to government on ways to increase housing supply and affordability. Unlike the coalition, which abolished the former National Housing Supply Council, we value the data and advice provided by that council as a crucial planning tool. It must be said that the abolition of the National Housing Supply Council by the coalition has significantly contributed to the crisis in housing affordability and availability across our nation and, therefore, to the hardship being experienced by so many Australians. It was short-sighted decision-making by a visionless government.

Reliable, trusted data didn't exist. Booms and busts snuck up unseen, making house prices difficult to predict. Too many Australians are being hit by growing rents. Too many Australians are struggling to buy a home. Too many Australians are facing or experiencing homelessness. This is largely due to the former government's ineptitude to recognise and act on significant housing issues.

In my own electorate of Corangamite the G21 alliance of five local municipal councils, businesses and organisations across the region say the need for social housing is acute. G21 believe there are at least 880 homeless people in the Geelong region and more than 5,000 people experiencing severe rental stress. Last October the Geelong Advertiser reported rental affordability in the region was at a record low, with just one in every 12 homes on the local rental market considered affordable. In the city of Geelong, just 8.7 per cent of rentals were considered affordable. That was dramatically down from 24.5 per cent in 2012 and 76.7 per cent in 2002. Late last year, the Community Housing Industry Association said the Surf Coast Shire, taking in areas in my electorate like Torquay and Anglesea, was experiencing huge rises in homelessness and rapidly increasing rents, with rental vacancy rates lower than 1.8 per cent. The severe shortage of accessible homes and the spike in homelessness is forcing regional councils to set aside land for future social housing. This is a worthy approach that includes public housing and homes managed by non-profit groups for people on low incomes. Similar challenges exist across the Golden Plains Shire in my electorate. In fact, each municipality in my electorate is developing their own plans to counter these challenges.

Our housing plan will be pivotal in helping councils, states and territories meet the current housing challenges. We will establish the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to provide a stream of funding, ensuring there is a future pipeline of new social and affordable housing for Australians in need. We will transform the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation into Housing Australia as a national home for key housing programs, and we will expand its activities. These commitments are part of the government's broader housing reform agenda which is already progressing. We've reached a landmark National Housing Accord, a shared ambition to build one million well-located homes over the next five years from 2024. We've committed $350 million in additional Commonwealth funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes over five years from 2024, matched by the states with another 10,000 homes. We're widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, making up to $575 million immediately available to invest in social and affordable housing. We're developing a National Housing and Homelessness Plan to set short-, medium- and long-term goals to improve household outcomes across Australia. We're implementing the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which has already helped more than 1,600 Australians into homeownership.

I will now address the specifics of the three bills before the House. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 establishes the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund as a source of funding for social and affordable houses and acute housing needs. The government will credit the fund with $10 billion after establishment. It is to be invested by the future fund board of guardians to produce returns to fund social and affordable housing and acute housing needs. The proceeds from the fund will also help deliver the government's commitment to build 30,000 new social and affordable homes. Importantly, the fund will also help address acute housing needs by providing $200 million over five years for the improvement of housing in Indigenous communities. Significantly, there will also be $100 million for housing options for women and children impacted by family and domestic violence, and the growing number of older women at risk of homelessness. There will be $30 million to build housing and fund specialist services for veterans experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness.

The government, through Housing Australia, will work with community housing providers, state and territory governments and other providers to improve housing outcomes in Australia. In addition to establishing the Housing Australia Future Fund, the government has expanded the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to make $575 million immediately available to fund social and affordable housing. The immediate availability of funding is important, as the shortage of housing inherited from the coalition is with us now, impacting people right now.

The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 will establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council as an independent statutory advisory body. Establishing the council will help the Commonwealth play a leadership role in tackling the housing challenges facing Australia. Labor committed to establishing the council as a part of the housing agenda it took to the federal election, recognising the importance of access to safe, secure and affordable housing for Australians. The council will provide a centre of expertise to bolster the evidence base for ways to improve housing supply and affordability. In addition to providing independent expert advice to government, the council will research and report on matters relating to housing supply and affordability.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 renamed the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to Housing Australia and will increase the responsibilities in line with the government's election commitment. The functions of Housing Australia are changing to better reflect its role, including responsibility for helping to deliver the government's commitment on social and affordable housing. Housing Australia will continue the activities of the previous National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. That includes the operation of the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, capacity building for community housing providers, administering the government's Home Guarantee Scheme and the $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility. Housing Australia will continue to operate as a corporate Commonwealth entity governed by an independent board and reporting to the Minister for Housing.

A further schedule of the amendment bill streamlines the relevant functions of Housing Australia. It also establishes an annual review mechanism for the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, allowing the government to regularly review its performance.

Another schedule of the amendment bill extends the legislated Commonwealth guarantee. That underpins the bonds issued by the previous National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to provide low-cost finance for community housing providers, applying to contracts until 30 June 2028.

The housing availability and affordability shambles inherited from the coalition desperately needs fixing. It will not happen overnight, but we recognise it must be done. These bills go a long way towards achieving our aim. The Albanese government reforms are much needed and urgent. They deserve our attention and the support of this parliament. They will help our most vulnerable, such as single mothers like Jenny and her children, who deserve to have a place to call home. There is nothing more important. So this bill deserves support from those opposite and a speedy passage through this parliament. I commend the bills to the House.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to discuss the three bills to be debated together: the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. The coalition will be supporting the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill and the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill, with amendment. The coalition will also be supporting the accompanying Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill once schedule 4 is removed.

Yesterday, in question time, the minister said there was a decade of little action from the coalition. I would now like to spend some time correcting that statement from the minister. During the coalition's last three years in government, our housing policy supported more than 300,000 Australians with the purchase of a home. The coalition supported more than 21,000 social and affordable homes through the establishment of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, which due to this legislation is soon to be renamed Housing Australia. Imitation genuinely is the greatest form of flattery.

In particular, under the coalition, first home buyers reached their highest level for nearly 15 years, with the number of first home buyers rising from approximately 100,000 when we came to office to nearly 180,000 in our last full financial year in government.

The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation was established to operate a $1 billion perpetual facility for financing critical housing related infrastructure to speed up the supply of new housing through the provision of loans and grants and the making of investments and there was the Affordable Housing Bonding Aggregator, providing cheaper and long-term finance to registered community housing providers. The NHFIC has been a landmark coalition achievement, and since its creation, it has delivered $2.9 billion of low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings, saving $470 million in interest payments to be reinvested in more affordable housing.

I had the opportunity as the member for Casey to visit a house that had been built through one of these loans and through community housing. It was amazing to talk to the recipients and the organisation and understand the impact the fund had. That's built, and it's there today, and people are living in those houses because of the former coalition government, so it's quite rich of the minister for her to stand at the dispatch box and insult all those Australians who in community housing, because the coalition delivered.

The NHFIC also unlocked 69,000 social, affordable and market dwellings through the coalition's $1 billion infrastructure facility to make housing supply more responsive to demand. It supported more than 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families into homeownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme with a deposit of as little as five per cent or two per cent, respectively. Of these guarantees, more than half of the 60,000 guarantees issued were taken up by women, which is well above the market average. One in five guarantees issued went to essential workers, almost 35 per cent of whom were nurses and 34 per cent of whom were teachers, and 85 per cent of family home guarantees were used by single mums.

The corporation protected the residential construction industry with more than 137,000 HomeBuilder applications, generating $120 billion of economic activity. We established the First Home Super Saver Scheme, helping 27,600 first home buyers accelerate their deposit savings through super. I would definitely not call that insignificant. After spending time, with those who have benefited from the schemes, I know there are people behind these numbers.

The government will argue and has argued that the Housing Australia Future Fund will fund and facilitate the building and supply of social and affordable housing, as well as support acute housing needs for Indigenous communities, vulnerable women, children and veterans. The government says it will include 20,000 social housing properties and 10,000 affordable homes for frontline workers over the first five years. When the Prime Minister delivered his budget reply speech in 2021, he announced the fund with the annual investment return to build social and affordable housing and create thousands of jobs.

It sounds impressive, and they are worthy goals that, I have no doubt, all in this House support. Unfortunately, this bill follows in the tradition of so many government bills. It follows their very standard formula. It's a four-step process. Step 1 of this formula is an impressive-sounding name. 'Housing Australia Future Fund' sounds very impressive. Step 2 is: 'We will commit a lot of money and make it over a long time-horizon so every time we mention that number it sounds very impressive.' In this case, it is $10 billion over ten years. However, they exclude the fact that the HAFF will be capitalised with $10 billion of additional Commonwealth government borrowing. Step 3 of this important four-step process is a really crucial one for the Treasurer. You've got to place the fund in off-budget spending, because that allows them to continue the facade of responsible economic management. Step 4 of this important process is to ensure significant lack of detail in the bill so the government is not held to account when rushing this bill through parliament.

I'll go through the four steps in more detail. Step 1 is the impressive sounding name. 'Housing Australia Future Fund' sounds good. The government have simply renamed the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to something, I'm assuming, they polled to make sure it polls better for them. I wonder how much time and money was wasted coming up with that irrelevant change. But they've got their impressive name, so they've got to commit a lot of money. Ten billion dollars sounds very impressive. Over 10 years? Not so much.

I'll move on to step 3. The government has already committed to tens of billions of dollars of extra borrowing in off-budget spending. That's going to have a direct impact on inflation, and I'll get to that in a minute. But for all this off-budget spending the money needs to be borrowed and repaid. The impact of that is going to be felt across the economy. Let's remember that the government made these promises a couple of years ago, when there were no interest rates, but we're borrowing money now. With the 10-year government bond rate approaching four per cent—and let's hope they lock it in before interest rates go up under this government—$10 billion in borrowing will cost the Commonwealth approximately $400 million per annum in interest to service the debt. So the government are going to spend $400 million a year before they even spend one dollar on social housing—all so they can stand up and talk about the $10 billion and say, 'We're taking action.' That $400 million a year in interest payments is before they spend a dollar on actually achieving an outcome. And that's not to talk about how this increased borrowing will add to inflationary pressure in the economy, leading to even higher interest rates.

There is no certainty about disbursements from the fund, because it will be wholly reliant on the financial performance of the fund's investments in equities and other financial products. For those listening at home, it's like taking out a personal loan of $20,000—you'd be paying a lot more than four per cent; I can guarantee that—and then gambling that on the stock market and hoping the market will go up and the money you make will cover your interest repayments. I'm not a financial adviser, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I'm not going to give anyone financial advice, but personally I would not gamble on the stock market going up and taking a loan out to do it. It's staggering that this government is.

As an example, if the fund had been established in the last financial year then the Commonwealth would have lost approximately $370 million in addition to the approximately $400 million in interest on the borrowings. So last year we would have had a total loss of approximately $770 million before we'd even spent a dollar on these worthy initiatives—all so the Prime Minister and others can stand up and talk about their $10 billion. It's not about delivering outcomes; it's about the politics of it.

The mechanism that dictates how the proceeds of the fund are distributed has very little oversight. We heard today, from the Minister for Communications, and yesterday about inequities in regional funding and Labor seats—the 74 per cent. So there's one thing we all know: there definitely needs to be oversight, because what Labor said during the campaign and what they're doing are completely different things.

In addition to all the issues with this off-budget spending, the fund risks driving inflation higher. It's not just me and others on this side saying that. The Australian Financial Review last week reported that the International Monetary Fund and economists have said:

Strong aggregate demand and the tight labour market warrant continued focus on fiscal consolidation in the near term …

The IMF also said—here's the kicker:

Implementation of below-the-line activity through newly created investment vehicles—

like the National Reconstruction Fund and the Housing Australia Future Fund—

should be phased appropriately, and, more broadly, a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided.

The Treasurer and the Prime Minister love to quote the IMF in this House. They have not quoted that in this House yet. It's very easy to selectively quote from the IMF. Real leaders, real economic managers, would take the advice of the IMF and understand. The Prime Minister probably doesn't know the economic implications of it because he doesn't know the cash rate or the unemployment rate, so I'll take it that he's just not aware of the implications. Dr Chalmers should know, given he's the Treasurer—although he's a Doctor of Political Science, Mr Deputy Speaker, so again there's a risk that he knows the politics of this four-step plan but doesn't actually know the economics. If he doesn't know it is incompetence and if he does know the inflationary impacts of off-budget spending and he is committed to $45 billion, it's a disgrace, because he's abandoning the Australian people for his own political gain.

Stakeholders have also criticised the limit on annual draw-downs, the lack of funding certainty, with no performance criteria to assess the effectiveness of the grants. The bill describes a five-year review time frame. That is wholly inadequate given the uncertainty I've just outlined around the funding model. Stakeholders have requested a much shorter period but, again, we know this government talks about transparency but nothing in their actions actually show it. This is a crucial question, because by designating this fund as off-budget spending, the government are committing to a return on investment for this capital. The reality is that this is smoke and mirrors from this government. We're on to step four, and those opposite are ensuring a significant lack of detail in the bill so they're not held to account. The investment mandate has yet to be released, restricting further scrutiny in key information on the fund's capability to deliver the government's election commitments. Without an investment mandate, this legislation is essentially a shell, with all key aspects to the operations of the fund likely to be contained in the investment mandate which has not been made public. On that basis alone, the coalition will not support this bill.

There is a failure to define key terms in the bill, such as: What is definition of social housing? What is the definition of affordable housing? And what is the definition of acute housing? The lack of detail in this bill flies a red flag, and taxpayer money is too important and hard earned to waste $1, especially at a time of high inflation.

I've listened to the contributions of those from the other side. I'm sure the member from Robertson will add his contribution as well. They've all spoken really well about the importance of social housing and the impact social housing has in our communities. I commend them for that. I'm on a unity ticket with them on the importance of social housing. I will support the legislation that gets the most vulnerable into the housing they need. I will always support that but I will not support legislation that does not deliver, that does not hold this government to account, that drives up inflation and that makes the lives of everyday Australians— (Time expired)

Gordon Reid (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say thank you to the member for Casey over there. I didn't realise that I got tickets to stand-up comedy today, because he must have been joking when he said the coalition delivered in the housing space. I was physically chuckling in my seat when that line was said. Look, what I am going to do is describe to you a scene, as I have before in this parliament, in the emergency department about people who are trying to get into housing or who are homeless. I'm talking about multiple shifts day after day, night after night, where people come in, not because they need medication, not because they need a medical illness treated but because they're fleeing family and domestic violence. They're unable to get into emergency accommodation. They're unable to get into housing at all. That is right across the spectrum of our community, but in particular those at-risk groups that the member for Casey listed for me, so that's fantastic that he is aware of that. I'm talking about women over the age of 50, the fastest-growing group of women who are becoming homeless in this country. I'm talking about the men and women of our armed services who have put their lives on the line to defend this country. Veterans in our community are unable to get into emergency accommodation, unable to get into housing. That is an absolute disgrace. Talking about our Aboriginal brothers and sisters, as a Wiradjuri man, that is heartbreaking for me. In the land of the Darkinjung people on the Central Coast, people not able to get unto housing in this country is a disgrace. So not only is it shameful that the opposition and other members of this parliament aren't supporting housing legislation that's only going to benefit this nation; it's disappointing, because the Housing Australia Future Fund is one of the biggest investments made in housing in this country in history, and that is absolutely something that needs to be supported.

My friend the member for Swan knows how important housing is in our communities. From Perth all the way across to the New South Wales Central Coast—east to west, north to south, regional, rural, in cities, in the country, inland and on the coast—it is absolutely vital that the men, women and children of this country have access to social and affordable housing and a safe place to call home for the night. That's what our government, the Albanese Labor government, understands: that safe and affordable housing is central, core and critical to the security and the dignity of Australians.

Too many of our fellow citizens are being hit by growing rents, too many are struggling to buy a home, and, as we have heard, too many are facing or experiencing homelessness. That's why we have this agenda that the Australian public voted for in 2022, so that we focus on and put money into things like housing, because we need to. People's lives depend on it. We said that we wouldn't waste a day in delivering this agenda, and that's what we're doing right now. That's what members here, including the member for Bruce and the member for Swan, are talking about today. Housing is important for our communities.

The housing legislation package that establishes the Housing Australia Future Fund, as has been said, is a comprehensive suite of measures to build more social and affordable homes for those people I was talking about who end up in the emergency department at night—in particular, women over the age of 50, veterans in our community and Indigenous people. It is so important, and it enables the most significant Australian government investment in housing in a generation.

This legislation implements the government's commitments to establish the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, to provide a stream of funding to ensure that there is a pipeline for new social and affordable housing for Australians in need. It's going to transform NHFIC, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, into Housing Australia, the national home for key housing programs—a much-needed change. It will make sure we expand activities into those at-risk areas, and it will establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent advice to government—'independent' being the key word there—on ways that we can increase housing supply and housing affordability, because we all know in this place that we need more independence and transparency, particularly when it comes to government policy.

These commitments are part of the broader agenda of our government, the Albanese Labor government, when it comes to housing, particularly reforming the space. Just recently, we reached a landmark National Housing Accord, a shared ambition to build one million well-located homes over five years from 2024. We widened the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and made it up to $575 million immediately available to invest in social and affordable housing. We developed a National Housing and Homelessness Plan to set short-, medium- and long-term goals to improve housing outcomes across Australia. We implemented the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which has already helped more than 1,600 people into homeownership, and the Help to Buy program, which will reduce the cost of buying a home and help people to buy a house sooner.

The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 establishes the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, as I said earlier, as a source of funding for the social and affordable housing and acute housing needs—acute housing needs being exceedingly important. The government will credit the fund with $10 billion after its establishment, to be invested under the management of the Future Fund Board of Guardians to produce returns to fund the social and affordable housing and acute housing needs.

It will also help address acute housing needs by providing $200 million over five years for the improvement of housing in Indigenous communities, one of those at-risk groups that I was telling you about who come into the emergency department seeking shelter. I am talking $100 million for housing options for women and children impacted by domestic violence. In my clinical experience, I have seen people less than one month of age who have been impacted by family and domestic violence and who have been unable to get into a house that night. The only place they can go is the hospital because it is the only place with the lights on. There is no place for them to go.

There is an additional $30 million to build housing and to fund specialist services for veterans experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness. They have put their bodies on the line, they've risked their lives for our nation and we need to make sure that we are providing for them when they come home and are here in our communities.

The government, including through Housing Australia, will work with community housing providers, state and territory governments and other providers to improve housing outcomes in Australia. In addition to establishing the Housing Australia Future Fund to provide a funding source for social and affordable homes and those acute housing needs, the government has expanded the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to make $575 million immediately available to fund social and affordable housing.

I know that I continue to tell the House about my experience in the emergency department, but it is one of the reasons that I am here. I spoke about it at length to this parliament during my maiden speech and I continue to speak about it on many pieces of legislation, including this one on housing, because it is important. The emergency department has become a social hub, not an acute medical facility. People are coming in because they are fleeing family and domestic violence, they can't afford their medications, they can't get in to see a GP or they can't get a roof over their heads and a safe place to call home overnight. It is particularly true of those at-risk communities. Women over the age of 50 are the fastest growing group of homeless in the country. It's the veterans in our community. It's the Indigenous people in our community.

If we don't make this investment now, if we don't invest in housing, if we don't invest in addressing homelessness, the situation is only going to deteriorate and people in this country are only going to be worse off, and that's not what being in government is about. Being in government, being on this side of the chamber, being in this House, for every member here, is about supporting our communities, our electorates and the country. It's about making sure that we are making good financial and economic decisions, like for the construction of social and affordable housing. It is about making sure we're putting good social policy forward like the Housing Australia Future Fund, which will provide for social and affordable housing that is so desperately needed in this country. People are crying out for housing, and now we—all of us here—finally have the opportunity to make it right. We have the opportunity to invest in an area of need and we have an opportunity to make sure that men, women and children all across the country have a safe place to call home.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the member for Robertson's contribution just now. There is no argument; of course we need to improve prospects for people who so desperately need social and affordable housing. The number of people who are experiencing homelessness is a concern for every member of this parliament. There is no doubt about that.

The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 together, as a housing legislative package, are some of the most significant housing reforms we have seen in the last decade. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill will create a $10 billion funding stream to support and increase social and affordable housing and address other acute housing needs for the groups in our society who need it most: Indigenous Australians, women and children experiencing domestic and family violence, older women with low incomes who are at risk of homelessness and many of our veterans.

The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill sets up an advisory body for the government, to ensure they make well-informed, sensible decisions on how this money is spent. It aims to research the conditions that impact housing affordability and supply by working with all levels of government—including, and importantly, local councils—to find out where housing is needed the most and the barriers to getting it.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill will expand the remit of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to deliver the government's social and affordable housing programs. As we've heard today—with some mirth, but nevertheless—it will be renamed Housing Australia. It's easier to say, that's for sure.

I support these bills. They are the start of much-needed housing reform in this country—an area that has been neglected for far too long and is reaching crisis levels across the country, and, indeed, in my electorate of Indi. We are currently experiencing, in my patch, an unprecedented level of housing demand—something that I have not seen in the long, long time that I've lived in the area. From big towns, like Wodonga and Wangaratta, to small towns, like Corryong in the north and Alexandra in the south, people are constantly talking to me about the housing crisis.

Before the pandemic, people on low incomes struggled, actually, to find social and affordable housing in my community. But once the pandemic hit, that increased. One of the reasons was that, after the pandemic hit, there was an influx of people moving to the regions from the cities. And why wouldn't you? We have so much to offer: a magnificent natural environment and welcoming communities, and we are ripe for opportunity. But what housing stock was available was snapped up. Demand rapidly outstripped supply of new homes. And obtaining a rental lease in my electorate is like winning the lottery. For years, in rural and regional Australia, we've said: 'Build it and they will come.' Well, they've come, and no-one's built it.

Unfortunately, population increases also mean that house prices and rental payments in regional Victoria have increased significantly. Some towns in Indi have recently seen house prices increase by 34 per cent. A rental report released by Domain this year found that, in the last 12 months, three of the top five local government areas with the highest rent increases in Victoria are in my electorate, in Indi, in the local government areas of Strathbogie, Indigo and Alpine. You can't get a cheap place to put a roof over your head in regional Victoria anymore—certainly not in Indi.

The lack of affordable housing has massive flow-on impacts, particularly for our workforce. Whenever I speak to a business owner, they tell me they're unable to fill job vacancies because people cannot find anywhere to live in a town. And the thing about regional Australia, of course, is that you can't just look in the next suburb. You need to look in the next town, and the next town is not five minutes away. Towns like Beechworth and Bright are struggling to find hospitality workers because there's no housing available. Essential workers in the area of health can't find a place to live. If 10 per cent of workplace positions can't be filled due to housing shortages, this flows on to a $200 million economic loss to our region.

The pressure on the housing market means that the social housing needs have skyrocketed. The previous balance—of low incomes, low housing costs—has been depleted by an overall increase in housing costs. Affordable and social housing needs are no longer large-city or capital-city concerns. They have quickly become a crisis in regional and rural areas.

Across Australia, including in the regions, these reforms will see much-needed affordable rental housing for the most vulnerable groups. As we've heard today, older women are the fastest-growing group of people at risk of homelessness in Australia, and they've come to me in my office to tell me so. In 2020, 405,000 women aged 45 years and over were estimated to be at risk of homelessness, and I can't recall a time where we've seen this.

For Victorians who are facing violence, are already homeless or need to move for health reasons, the wait time for housing has just blown out. In Indi, there are 1,600 people on the waitlist for social housing, including 782 on the priority list. The total number on the waitlist has gone up 65 per cent since 2014, and the priority list has more than doubled. Around 300 people who leave the Australian Defence Force each year experience homelessness—three times the rate of the Australian general population. I think that's extraordinary. The Wangaratta RSL recently contacted me about the need for targeted housing for veterans. Again, they were shocked by the need. Veterans, women and children fleeing domestic violence, and older women at risk of homelessness deserve a stable, safe home. I am pleased that this bill is specifically investing to address this.

This is a good bill, but it could be better. I will move amendments to ensure the specific needs of regional, rural and remote Australia are explicitly considered under these bills. I will do this because we have seen that if you don't explicitly target rural, regional and remote Australia, they can miss out. The previous government promised to spend $1 billion to help us unlock housing supply. Unfortunately, less than 25 per cent of that money was actually spent, and none of it came to my electorate in the last financial year. There was no dedicated, explicit consideration to the dire housing needs in regional Australia. That's unacceptable. This government has an opportunity to make this explicit, and I call on them to do so.

I have worked with the minister on this to make sure that she considers this. It's extremely important. I don't want to see rural areas forgotten. My amendments will ensure that they are not by adding that an object of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill is to provide a funding mechanism for the acute housing needs of Australians living in regional areas. Any reviews of the act must also consider the extent to which the fund is meeting housing needs in regional Australia, so we know whether the funds are actually going there or not. We need to see that. We need that transparency.

My amendments will also ensure that at least one member of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council has demonstrated and relevant experience and expertise in housing needs in regional, rural or remote Australia. Under my amendments, one of the council's functions will be to advise the minister on issues of housing supply and affordability specifically in the regions.

These aren't outrageous amendments. They're not controversial at all, I don't think. They are very simple. They should not be held back by a lack of consideration. In fact, I call on my colleagues across the House to back me in on this—particularly those members from rural, regional and remote Australia. When this government proudly talks about building 30,000 social and affordable homes within five years, the housing needs of regional areas absolutely must not be forgotten. I really urge you all to back me in on this one.

This government has the ambitious goal of building tens of thousands of new homes. They have told us this, and we have heard it in many speeches today. I struggle, though, to see how they are going to fulfil this election promise if they do not specifically invest in critical enabling infrastructure—critical infrastructure like a functioning sewerage system. That doesn't sound very glamourous, but it's absolutely essential if you want to create new housing. Right now in Wangaratta, you can't build any more houses because the main sewer line is at capacity and it's going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade that infrastructure. That's money that a regional council doesn't just have lying around. I've spoken about this before, and I'm going to keep at it. Benalla has a similar problem; it needs $10 million worth of drainage works in the west and north-west of the town, otherwise they simply can't build any more homes, whether they're affordable social housing or not. This must sit squarely on the government's agenda. This is an issue, I am sure, across many other regional electorates.

My amendments will add as an object of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill to fund critical enabling infrastructure for social and affordable housing in regional Australia. It will clarify that any references to increasing social and affordable housing includes funding the critical enabling infrastructure to fully realise this goal. Again I say to government, please do this. This will make a real difference. My amendments will also clarify that local governments can receive grants under the Housing Australia Future Fund. Local governments, often partnering with community housing providers, are the key enablers of the critical infrastructure communities need. Those things are not only things like sewerage but also parks, sporting grounds, lighting, drainage. As I've said, these are the things that actually create a neighbourhood.

I will also move amendments to the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 to ensure that one of the council's research functions is to monitor how critical enabling infrastructure is impacting housing supply and affordability. If we closely monitor this, whether this enormous $10 billion fund is delivering critical infrastructure, we will know if it's also building the thousands of homes that it says it will, and particularly in the regions.

For a long time we have prioritised giving Australians the opportunity of homeownership, yet we need to value rental homes just as much as homeownership. Homeownership is not in everyone's reach. We need to create safe, comfortable, affordable, long-term rental houses. To date we haven't done that. A July 2022 report found that the north-east Victorian region experienced the second highest rent increase in the entire state of Victoria, with rents increasing by an average of 10 per cent. This is despite average wages for workers in the retail, health care and social assistance sectors only increasing by 2.3 per cent over those three years. This shows that tenants in north-east Victoria are at the mercy of the toxic combination of rising rents and stagnating wages. In Indi, we know that the problem with housing affordability is not just rising prices; it's supply as well, and there are simply not enough houses to rent.

I met with constituents in the town of Wodonga, the biggest town in my electorate, who submitted over 170 rental applications before finding a place. This is why I'm moving amendments which clarify that, when the bill refers to 'affordable housing' it means affordable rental housing. I want to make sure this is upfront and centre, absolutely clear, no mistake. The amendment is supported by the not-for-profit group BeyondHousing, who are extraordinary, and I thank them for all the work they do in providing people in Indi with a pathway to a home.

If my amendments pass, they will ensure the specific housing needs of regional Australia are considered. They will ensure enabling infrastructure for housing in regional Australia is specifically considered. But I think we can actually do even more. We need to think a bit differently. We need to think contextually. We need to think about rural and regional Australia and what we need there to open up housing stock. I mean housing stock that's at all levels, not just social and affordable housing. We need something creative. We don't want to create suburbia in regional towns, but we need medium-density housing and we need social housing; we need clever housing.

I have put a proposal to government to set up a dedicated regional housing infrastructure investment fund. This would be a $2 billion fund to unlock private investment in new houses by building the basic infrastructure needed for new developments, including social infrastructure like community centres. The fund would also provide local government assistance to fast-track planning approvals. They're held back by that as well. I think my proposal is a simple one. It's a clear one. It puts rural and regional Australia right there where it needs to be, explicitly in this housing policy.

We all know how great it is to live out in the regions. That's why we stay, and that's why people are coming. The last thing I want is our young families moving out of the electorate because they don't have the means to build in our communities. The last thing I want is our local hospitals, our local schools, our local childcare centres and our local tradies having to say, 'I'm sorry, there's nowhere for you to live,' and those people who want to come and take these jobs moving somewhere else. Addressing the housing crisis in regional Australia is the first step to addressing that challenge—the challenge of workforce. This bill is a great start, but we can do better. I urge the government: take up my amendments and work with me to develop these funds.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These housing bills are an important part—key planks, if you like—of implementing the government's election commitments in relation to housing. But the context is important. There's no point pretending otherwise. There's a housing crisis across the country, and the housing crisis is a human crisis. There are untold thousands of Australians struggling to get a place to live, whether that's renting, buying or even emergency accommodation for over 100,000 Australians. This is affecting people of all ages in every part of the country—and I do acknowledge what the member for Indi has said, rightly, around regional Australia—in particular, First Nations communities, women fleeing domestic and family violence, and one of the fastest growing groups of homeless people: older women in this country, often with no superannuation, maybe broken-down relationships and little time in the workforce. The government inherited this mess—a decade of delay and dithering.

When I was elected six and a bit years ago the previous government didn't even have a minister for housing. That's how seriously the previous Liberal government took housing. They didn't even have a Commonwealth minister for housing. They did invent one. It was like a kind of little bauble—'Look, we've got a Minister for Housing.' It was the member for Deakin—not who I would have chosen for a pretty bauble, but there you go.

They didn't do anything useful. In nearly five years there was no meeting of the housing ministers. One of the jobs of the Commonwealth housing minister is to get all of the states and territories together, because the levers sit with both the states and territories and the Commonwealth.

There is something worse than doing nothing. On the rare occasion that the previous government decided to try doing something on housing they actually made the problem worse. There were nice-sounding schemes after schemes. They all had fancy names—HomeBuilder and what have you. They were all about putting more cash into people's pockets, which pushed up the cost of housing. HomeBuilder, as we know, was largely an expensive renovation scheme randomly enriching people who were already planning to do renovations, including bathroom renovations—'I'll have some better quality taps.' It wasn't a serious housing program. It just pushed up the cost of housing.

The government didn't make this mess, but we recognise and accept responsibility to intervene and grapple with it. As I said, this is a federation. We have the Commonwealth and the states and territories. It is fundamentally impossible to make any serious impact on the housing market—whether that's growing supply or making housing more affordable—if you don't work together, because the hard reality in our Constitution is that it's state governments, and under them local governments, that have many of the levers in relation to supply: planning and building approvals, zoning in particular and bringing on new supply. They have a responsibility to manage the social and public housing stock, and indeed to fund that. The Commonwealth has many of the demand levers, including obviously migration over time, taxation arrangements and so on. They are the facts of life. You can't deal with this stuff unless you get the states and territories together. I commend the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Homelessness, the member for Franklin, on her work. Now that adult government is back we actually get everyone around the table and start dealing with problems.

I know this stuff is lost on the Liberals. I occasionally talk about my gold medal for policy stupidity. The Assistant Treasurer there at the table would know the winner of that is the super-for-housing idea. It was pioneered by the former member for Goldstein. What happened to him? He's no longer here, is he? He was running around with this ridiculous idea. We didn't think anybody would seriously adopt it. Mathias Cormann and Josh Frydenberg both said: 'No. It's a dumb idea to let people raid their superannuation to buy houses. If you understand supply and demand, you know what that would do. If you put more cash in people's pockets, it pushes up the cost of housing.'

This is the reality we've inherited—neanderthal-like policies, which the Leader of the Opposition recommitted to last year in his budget reply speech. Their policy to make housing more affordable is to make it more expensive. If you go to an auction and you're bidding against people and you've your superannuation in your pocket, what's going to happen? You're just going to push up the bidding, so you may as well just give your superannuation to the guy selling the house. That's the reality.

These bills before us are a key election commitment. The supply council in essence is a role that the Commonwealth can take—if you like, the convening power of the Commonwealth to get the states and territories together and to hold that mirror to reflect in an honest, balanced way what's happening with supply. We did have efforts on supply under the former Labor government, but of course Tony Abbott got elected and abolished them all. This time—I think sensibly—we are reinstituting this as a statutory authority to make it a lot harder should—woe betide the country—the Liberals get elected again one day. It will be harder for them to wind this back. It needs to be entrenched permanently, and this bill will do that.

In a former life, many years ago as a public servant in Victoria, I looked after metropolitan planning. I was in charge of the long-term plan for Melbourne, including land supply. We instituted then a program that is still going—the Urban Development Program. Every year the government publishes accurate, evidence based, independent, impartial forecasts about land supply in each of the major growth markets and the established councils. We also look at competition in those markets. There's no point in having lots of land zoned if you've got two or three developers who are price-fixing, effectively, by holding back the lots. Hence, often there needs to be a role—I know this will be shocking to those opposite—for a government public land developer to come in, buy land and bust up the cartels and get it on the market to get the prices down. But all of these things sit with the states and territories, hence the National Housing Supply Council is a critical Commonwealth intervention to hold that mirror back at the states.

Then there's the Housing Australia Future Fund, to deliver more social and affordable housing. There's a $10 billion investment in the fund to deliver 30,000 new social and affordable houses over five years. This is capital investment to create a revenue stream—again, foreign concepts for those opposite and, indeed, the Greens political party—which means it's sustainable. So every year there will be money flowing in, instead of what we have seen for too long, which is lumpy investments and programs that come and go. We need to make it an ordinary part of the business of government to slowly but steadily increase the supply of affordable housing. That's what the bill does. It's desperately needed. There are hundreds of thousands of people on social and affordable and public housing waiting lists across the country. They are crying out for action, and the government has a mandate for this. It was a key election promise of the government, and this bill is implementing that promise that people voted for.

But there is a threat to getting this done. The Liberals and the Greens appear to be teaming up in an unholy alliance to stop the creation of more social and affordable housing that is desperately needed, right across the country. We understand from the coalition, the 'noalition' as many have been calling them, that they would instinctively oppose progress. They've never supported social and affordable housing. They funded nothing for social and affordable housing in their last wasted decade in government. If you see a good idea, you can guarantee they would oppose it. But I am stunned by the Greens' yet again teaming up with the Liberals to block progress. I want to record my dismay at, frankly, the idiocy of the Greens political party on this issue. They are set to oppose the bill, they say. The Greens are set to oppose social and affordable housing. How do we know their position, you may well ask. It's not because they've told the government. The minister has had three meetings, at least, sitting down, talking through the bill, inviting them to contribute and inviting thoughts and feedback. But no, they came up with a set of amendments and dumped them, leaked them, to the media. That's how serious they are about impacting government policy, about making a difference.

For any Australian who thinks the Greens political party are some kind of constructive force, that we should vote Green because it might push the Labor government to be more progressive, consider the facts and have a serious look. This is the archetypal case study on how pointless and ineffectual and juvenile they are. The Greens are saying they don't want a $10 billion fund and they don't want $500 million a year in a sustainable way for affordable housing. They want grants—$5 billion a year, 10 times. That sounds nice, except there are two big problems. It's inflationary in the current environment. Can you seriously think of anything more irresponsible than throwing petrol on a fire? Throwing $5 billion a year out into the housing market. Just make up a number; that's what they do. It's all fake money in their imaginary government and their fantasy budget there in the Greens political party, frankly. That's what it is. They're never accountable; they just say stuff. But it would be highly inflationary and push up the cost of housing. They're impossible numbers in the current construction environment. Anyone trying to find a builder at the moment would know that. The more cash that governments splurge on infrastructure—goodness me, $5 billion a year from the Commonwealth would further push up the cost of housing.

The Greens are calling for rent caps. Small problem, Greens Party: the Commonwealth has no power. But that doesn't stop them; it's all about a headline. The whole point of parliament for the Greens political party seems to be to move ridiculous motions and call for things which the federal government has no power on, purely for stunts and memes on social media. That is the point. At least once a week we get a silly motion so they can force the government and the opposition to vote together and create this fiction of the old parties that we are somehow all the same. It's a business model. I've been here for six years. Week after week, that's what happens. It's a stunt.

I was interested to read TheAustralian on the weekend. It said the Greens and the coalition are working together to scuttle the $10 billion fund and the flagship housing policy—classic Greens behaviour. They don't come here to build and influence; they come to wreck. The member for Griffith, their housing spokesperson, took to Twitter on the weekend. There was a rambling statement full of, frankly, misinformation and scaremongering. He said 'A $10 billion fund represents a cut.' That is just ridiculous and untrue given the former government invested nothing. How on earth could it represent a cut? Then he said, 'The fund is a $10 billion gamble on the stock market.' That is also nonsense. It has been carefully designed with the guardians of the Future Fund, drawing on design of the Medical Research Fund, the Future Drought Fund and so on to smooth out the variations in returns so there is a steady flow of money over the next few years to construct 30,000 new social and affordable dwellings. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. One of my favourite moments in question time is when the Greens housing spokesperson gets up and asks the Prime Minister some sanctimonious question full of nonsense about affordable housing and they rightly get a whack.

I was a mayor of a council the 22 years ago. I know how hard it is with the community battles—Dai Le, the member for Fowler, you've done this—how hard it is to get residents on board for social and affordable housing. But I will stand by my record over the Greens political party any day. Whenever anyone complains on their councils, they vote no. At any opportunity, their deeds don't match their words. They vote against affordable housing, just as they're threatening to do in the parliament here in Australia. If you really care about housing, you actually have to vote yes. When I was the mayor of a council, I was criticised by the local Greens. The council owned 450 houses. We took a tough decision to vest the houses in a trust and set up an affordable housing association to leverage the balance sheet and attract funding—you know, adult council. The Greens opposed it, just as they oppose any sensible reform now that makes a difference if it upsets their ability to get a silly meme up on social media.

Two months ago, if we go with the theme of hypocrisy, the member for Melbourne, Dr Bandt, the Leader of the Greens, sent a heartfelt message to supporters asking them to think about housing and homelessness and those struggling to pay the rent over Christmas. I have a copy. Right in the middle of this lovely email the Greens political party sent to their supporters, he said, 'If you really care about the homeless at this difficult time of year, maybe you'd like to make a donation to the Greens Party by flicking the orange button'. We're not here to use this as a fundraising opportunity. Labor members don't see the parliament as an opportunity for stunts and memes. I noticed not one member of the Greens Party in the House has joined the parliamentary committee, not one of them. They are not here to do serious policy work. They don't try and influence colleagues. None of them have ever knocked on my door to talk about an issue. The point of parliament for the Greens is stunts and memes, like this is one big never ending episode of student politics. I say to them: stop the opposition, stop the stunts, don't scuttle the legislation in the Senate and vote for the fund. Without 30,000 new dwellings, the consequences for people right across Australia would be horrendous. They're fighting against the millions of people this bill will help, people fleeing domestic violence, people who fought for our country—veterans—First Nations Australians who live in remote communities, and people across the country in the cities and the regions who need a home.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to thank the minister for allowing me to contribute to shaping the bill by raising some important issues. I acknowledge the minister is taking long-term steps to secure social hosing now and for the future. As someone who has grown up in public housing, I understand the importance of a safety net and I support the work that community housing providers do to ensure people have a roof over their heads. While this legislation is not perfect—let's face it, no bill is—it's definitely a good start to building more social and affordable housing for all Australians. Therefore, I move amendments to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) acknowledges the housing crisis is locking out low-to-middle-income Australians, and is increasing demand for social and affordable housing schemes;

(2) recognises the overall need to deliver 45,000 social and affordable homes a year to tackle the housing crisis—as per data from the National Housing and Financing Investment Corporation; and

(3) calls on the government to:

(a) address development issues in the building and construction sector, including:

(i) skilled labour shortages;

(ii) supply chain issues as a result of the pandemic; and

(iii) rising interest rates and inflation causing significant increases in basic building costs;

(b) mandate state governments to streamline planning, processing and approvals, which would increase availability of development-ready land;

(c) implement incentives similar to the previous National Rental Affordability Scheme to boost housing delivery by both the private sector and community housing providers; and

(d) work with states to enact uniform tenants' rights laws".

My electorate of Fowler has the sixth-highest rate of families in public and social housing across Australia and the fourth-worst rental affordability in the country. In Fowler, 46 per cent of our rental households have rental payments that are more than 30 per cent of their household income. There is little room to negotiate, with rental vacancy rates in Sydney at 1.3 per cent. In Sydney's south-west, the vacancy rate is at one per cent as of January 2023.

The Reserve Bank has just made its ninth interest rate rise in a row, causing more financial stress and pressure for our middle-income-earning Australians. With these tough economic times, it's a very real possibility that many of my residents who own homes may be forced to default on them and, with such a low vacancy rate, may find themselves with nowhere to go.

As many of us in this House know, the cost-of-living crisis is hitting the hip pockets of many Australians right now, especially in electorates like Fowler, where our median income is 20 per cent less than the national average. How can people afford to save for a deposit while they pay rent and they're struggling to simply put food on the table and pay for petrol, while looking after their kids and elderly parents?

My second point refers to a 2021 report by NHFIC which states that 45,000 social and affordable homes are required each year to tackle the current housing crisis. Similar views are shared by the community housing providers I have consulted with regarding the lack of housing supply. St George Community Housing, based in Bonnyrigg, have suggested the $500 million fund would fall short to make 30,000 homes, let alone the projected 45,000 homes required for both social and affordable housing.

Hume Community Housing, in their joint submission with PowerHousing Australia, also state that 30,000 homes could have a capital construction cost of approximately $10.5 billion alone. This does not include upkeep, maintenance and providing other much-needed services to these communities. They have also provided data outlining that wait times for homes in their Fairfield and Liverpool branches are all at capacity, and people are having to wait 10 years plus to secure a home. Hume Community Housing are currently housing over 12,000 people in Liverpool and Fairfield. Their support networks are integral to getting the homeless off the streets and providing as much support as possible to vulnerable people like Jessica, a young person whose life spiralled out of control due to drug addiction. But, with the support of Hume Community Housing, she is now reformed and is helping others with the issues she once struggled with. This includes being a shoulder to lean on, helping people fill out their paperwork and reaching out to those in need through her social media channels. Addiction doesn't discriminate. Jessica says that it's not only about having a home but also about having solid support around you to keep you going and focused on the future.

Another provider I spoke with, Evolve Housing, operates out of Parramatta and manages 2,000 homes across Western Sydney. They have told us that their priority waiting list takes five to 10 years, while the general waiting list is 10 years or more. St George Community Housing, another community housing provider in my electorate of Fowler, provide essential services to nearly 1,500 residents in Bonnyrigg Newleaf. They provide funfairs, movie nights and family outings but also help residents upskill with development programs. These include an IT and computer literacy class, which they're proud to say has led to two of the class of 10 people gaining part-time work so far.

These examples go to show that the CHPs are working hard to provide tenants with a roof over their heads as well as ensuring residents are not only housed but their overall wellbeing is looked after. But they're having to deal with the lack of social and affordable housing. The supply is simply not enough. While the Housing Australia Future Fund has set out its mandate to build these homes, more needs to be done to ensure the longevity of the scheme and to safeguard community programs that CHPs offer so tenants ultimately benefit.

My third point that I hope the government will address concerns the skills and supply chain shortages that are plaguing most, if not all, industries. According to the ABS, input costs for house building grew by 14.2 per cent in the 12 months to December 2022. In pre-pandemic times, the average build time for a detached dwelling was roughly nine months. In many locations across the country, build times have ballooned out to 24 months. It's all well and good to commit to building 30,000 homes, but this is not achievable if we don't have the workforce or the materials to do so. I support skilled migration to fill the immediate gaps, but I urge the government to also look towards increasing apprenticeships and training positions to upskill our local residents to join the construction sector as well.

While the rest of the country faces all-time-low unemployment rates, the story in Fowler is very different. We have an unemployment rate of 10 per cent, nearly three times the national average. Here I want to commend the work of St George Community Housing in also introducing pathways to employment, therefore bringing down the unemployment rate in our area. It was through the work of St George Community Housing that I learned the story of Wiradjuri man Arthur and his two sons Arthur Jr and Thomas. Arthur spent a large portion of life in and out of jail and abusing drugs but made the decision to get clean while Arthur Jr's and Thomas's mother was in the last stage of cancer. It took him years to get clean, gain custody of his kids and move into Bonnyrigg Newleaf. With the support of St George, both boys, now teenagers, are working part-time, with Arthur Jr pursuing courses in construction and hospitality. Their very proud father says: 'The courses are building their confidence. They are not hanging around the streets and with their friends but are doing something for themselves and getting skills they wouldn't have been able to get otherwise.' This is one example of how CHPs can inspire their residents to contribute to the trades and construction sector and also tackle the workforce issue.

It's clear that, while construction of housing is important, community engagement is pivotal to tenants' wellbeing and provides them with opportunities to grow their skill sets so they may be able to become self-sufficient through employment. I hope the government and the minister are genuine and authentic in wanting to jump start the manufacturing and construction sectors, which they are proposing under the National Reconstruction Fund—especially supporting the small and medium enterprises in places like south-west Sydney to enable them to create local jobs and local products so we are no longer reliant on other countries for what we can create ourselves.

My fourth point refers to the National Rental Affordability Scheme but is an overall issue we need to address in the HAFF's investment mandate. We must ensure we encourage investment both from private entities and community housing providers. Hume Housing and St George Community Housing have also echoed the need for co-investment into social and affordable housing. When we talk about co-investment, the National Rental Affordability Scheme comes to mind. Starting in 2008, in light of the global financial crisis, it's incredibly unfortunate that the NRAS is beginning to wrap up during another cost-of-living crisis. Evolve Housing raised concerns about the end of the scheme, citing the 436 private properties they manage under NRAS have reduced to 360 as of February 2023. They have assured us the 300 or so properties they developed under the scheme will remain subsidised. They said: 'Even with the stars aligned, and we miraculously get these 30,000 properties in the next five years, the net impact will be close to zero without the NRAS.'

As the scheme draws to a close, thousands of people living in affordable homes will be out on the street with some of the lowest rental vacancy rates in the last 10 years. This will therefore put more pressure on community housing providers to develop more houses, but it isn't possible to do this overnight. I acknowledge that many private developers took advantage of this scheme, building cheaper and smaller homes while receiving the same subsidies. However, if there was a regulation that ensured proportional funding depending on the size of the build as well as the location of the build, this would not be so easily taken advantage of.

With rising interest rates and inflation, I understand why mum-and-dad investors will be pulling out of this scheme early. After all, it's untenable to continue subsidising rent if they're haemorrhage money. The government should look to safeguard the current tenancies by incentivising altruistic private investors to stay on the scheme, but with the above regulations. There's a lot to be learned from NRAS. I sincerely hope the government takes the lessons onboard when forming the investment mandate for the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023.

My last point is to safeguard tenant rights and to call for the federal government to work with the state governments to create a national tenants' rights policy. This would ensure that private developments meet minimum standards and renters can be in habitable conditions, boosting their health and wellbeing. At the moment, many of the renters in Fowler go without proper heating in the cooler months or air conditioning in the hotter months. Last year in South-Western Sydney, six people were hospitalised from carbon monoxide poisoning after using a charcoal barbecue to heat up their homes. How is this an acceptable standard of living in this day and age? Tenants also fear they could face eviction on a whim, and this is particularly concerning given that 42 per of people in my electorate of Fowler rent rather than owning their own home, nearly 10 percentage points more than the national average. It will be devastating to see more people get evicted into a scarce rental market with some of the lowest rental vacancies in the last decade.

In sum, I want to make it clear that I agree with CHPs who have raised concerns that the funding is inadequate and that 30,000 homes may not be enough, but we must start somewhere, and having some social and affordable housing is, I suppose, better than having none. I support the minister in her efforts to take these measured steps to ensure we are helping the most needy and vulnerable. Community housing can change lives, as it has changed mine and my family's. Jessica, whose life was transformed by community housing, reminded us why we must get this right when she said, 'Having a safe place to go to is the most important thing in life.'

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 are some of the most important legislation that will come before this House this year. I'll go into why that is so in the course of my speech. For anyone listening, just to summarise what those three bills are about, this set of bills establishes a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to deliver more social and affordable housing; establishes the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent expert advice to government on housing; and makes Housing Australia the home of Australian government housing programs. Housing Australia effectively takes over from the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation.

Last week the Property Council of Australia launched their paper A stark reality here at Parliament House. Their paper—which is more than just a paper; it's actually a book of some 50-odd pages—goes through the issues relating to why we effectively have a housing crisis in this country today. It's an important document that outlines a number of key statistics. I just want to go through some of those statistics and then come back to the substance of this legislation.

Firstly, the Australian population by the year 2060 is now projected to be 39 million people. It's expected to be something like 30 million by 2033. Of all the cities surveyed around the world, Sydney is now the second-least affordable city for housing in the world, out of some 92 cities that were surveyed. Five Australian capital cities—those being Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide—sat inside the worst 20 cities for affordability, and all Australian major city markets ranked as severely unaffordable. It goes on to say that homeownership rates in Australia have fallen from around 71 per cent in 1994-95 to 67 per cent in 2019-20. Importantly, the proportion of people who own their own homes but now have a mortgage has increased from 29 per cent in 1994-95 to 36.8 per cent in 2019-20. It's also expected that over the next seven or eight years there will be a housing shortfall of around 160,000 homes in this country. We also saw that only last year the national rental vacancy rate was down to as low as one per cent. Effectively, there was no vacancy rate because I'm sure, for that one per cent, there were good reasons why those houses were not rented.

The other point that is important to note with respect to that report is that we have in Australia today 418,000 social housing properties. Of those, 274,500 are provided by state and territory housing authorities. The important thing here is that those numbers have hardly moved over the last two or three decades, while the population of Australia has increased significantly. So, as the population has been going up, the number of social houses has remained pretty stagnant. Even worse—and this is a personal observation—over the last decade or so of the last coalition government we saw absolutely no commitment, no policy initiatives, towards addressing what was a problem 10 years ago and should have been picked up by the government. It is for that reason that, right now, we have the situation that we do. The reason is neglect over a 10-year period.

This legislation talks about what the Albanese Labor government is going to do to try and rectify those problems. I will come back to some specific comments a bit further on in my speech. But I just want to make some general points about the urgency of why we need a national housing plan and for this legislation to go through parliament.

Homelessness has been a real concern for this parliament and for governments ever since I came into this place. I can well recall one of the first issues that we were trying to address was homelessness, with over 100,000 people estimated at the time as being homeless. That was 15 years ago. I can recall the $6 billion fund the Rudd government at the time brought in to try to overcome some of that. Homelessness causes major social welfare problems and it adds to the social costs of government through health services and the like that have to be picked up further down the track.

We then have housing affordability. If people cannot afford their homes, then, quite frankly, it is one of the worst things that can happen for them. Not only is housing probably the biggest individual investment that any family will make but housing creates stability within families and within communities. A stable roof other a person's head, whether it's a rental roof or a roof on a home that they own, creates absolute stability, which in turn goes to health effects and so on which again are picked up by governments if housing is not available. That's not to mention the personal stress and grief that it causes families when they find themselves homeless or when they find themselves in a situation where they may become homeless. With respect to that, in the last 12 months alone, I have had more people come to my office seeking assistance for housing matters than I've ever had in previous years. Again, that just confirms the urgency of this matter.

There are many contributing factors as to why we are in the position we're in. I think the decade of neglect by the previous government is something that they will live to regret. Another issue—again an issue that I hold the previous government responsible for—was stagnant wages. When people's wages didn't go up, people couldn't afford to buy a home; in fact, some of them couldn't afford to rent either. Stagnant wages are a problem which this government, the Albanese government, understands and is doing something about.

Government investment in public housing, as I said earlier, has been diminishing over the years, rather than increasing. And we have responsibility for housing shared across all three levels of government: federal, state and local. It's not easy to pinpoint who is responsible, so each level of government passes the buck to another level. With respect to that, I applaud the Albanese government's initiative of a housing accord whereby all three levels of government are now expected to work together to try to overcome that very problem.

We also have a very cumbersome planning process across all jurisdictions. I've heard speakers from other states talking about that very issue, and I have my own experience from local government of how difficult the planning process can be for home builders and developers. We need to streamline that and do more to make it just that bit easier.

We then have—and, again, I think the Property Council of Australia highlights this point very well—a plethora of obligations, particularly from state and local governments, on anyone who wants to build a house. I could go through all the levies and taxes, the open space contributions and the other rates and taxes that have to be paid, not to mention the skills shortages that were mentioned by the previous speaker. When you combine all those factors you can understand why we have a housing shortage. I might say, with respect to skills shortages, that one of the other critical issues we face right now in this country is a shortage of certain key materials. Again, all these issues didn't just happen overnight; they happened gradually under the watch of the previous government, who did nothing about it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in the last few minutes of my comments on this legislation I will say this: this is a $10 billion proposal that will go a long way to overcoming many of the problems I just spoke about. It may not fix them all but it will go a long way to addressing them. It is disappointing to hear that members opposite are likely to oppose this legislation. It is difficult to understand why. Quite frankly, the projects that will come from this legislation, if they're followed through, will go a long way to rebuilding our economy, creating jobs, creating skills and ensuring that as a nation we're in a much better place in years to come.

I will close by quoting some comments made by the Minister for Housing in her speech, on 8 February, at the launch of the Property Council of Australia's report A stark reality. I can't say it better than she did, so I'm going to quote from her speech. She said that initiatives under the Albanese government would include:

Agreeing to commission the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to review barriers to institutional investment, finance and innovation in housing.

…   …   …   

Expanding and broadening the Home Guarantee Scheme, including delivering our Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee three months ahead of schedule which has already helped more than 1,700 Australians into home ownership.

Broadening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to allow it to support new social and affordable housing, in addition to financing critical housing infrastructure such as roads, electricity and gas.

Establishing the Housing Policy Partnership, which comes under Priority Reform One of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap.

Announcing the development of the National Housing and Homelessness Plan—

and, importantly:

Establishing the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to support 30,000 new social and affordable dwellings in the first 5 years of the Fund's operation.

That's a comprehensive package of measures that the Albanese government is bringing to this parliament, to try and overcome the critical issue of housing shortages in this country and ensure that people have a future ahead of them where they will have a roof over their head. Again, I implore members opposite to support this initiative. It may not be everything they want, but it goes a long way to addressing the housing crisis that we currently face. I commend this legislation to the House.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I rise to speak to the bills before the House, the reality is that the Australian housing market is in crisis and Australians from all walks of life are facing the cost-of-living crunch. In my own seat of North Sydney, over 50 per cent of those with a mortgage report that they're under financial stress, and, with interest rates set to only increase in the coming weeks, that stress is only going to grow.

At the same time, the one-in-two people who rent in my community are also under increasing stress and what many would say is unsustainable pressure. Properties are hard to come by, with the national rental vacancy rate at a record low of 0.9 per cent, while, nationally, the cost of rent has increased by 8.2 per cent. Capital cities like Sydney are even worse off, with the average rent increasing by 10.2 per cent in just the last 12 months. Unit rents have increased two per cent over the quarter, to $500 a week—a rate of growth which is double the previous quarter. Indeed, as it currently stands, the average weekly rent in my electorate of North Sydney is actually $561, which is more than 10 per cent higher than the state average.

In this context, then, the social and affordable housing crisis is one that knows no geographical boundaries. Essential workers, families, older women and the most vulnerable in our community need appropriate housing right across our country, and it is for this reason that robust debate regarding this Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 is something we must all commit to in this place.

A recent independent review conducted by the Australian government found that an investment of around $290 billion would be required over the next two decades to meet the shortfall in housing options. Devastatingly, well over 100,000 Australians are homeless on any given night. While we are fortunate to have a number of social housing operators and facilities in North Sydney, these are not nearly enough, and pressure always remains on those that do exist to, potentially, be repurposed, as the land value is so high.

Homelessness is ultimately the result of systemic issues, including the lack of safe and affordable housing in Australia, and it is an issue that none of us in this place can turn our back on. The North Sydney community consistently raises issues of housing affordability and rental stress with me, with many concerned not only for the current residents and the current generation but, importantly, for future generations.

Housing affordability is one of our society's most pressing issues. But let's be clear: this is not a problem that we can solve simply by throwing money at it. Housing affordability is a complex problem that has been building for decades, and, just like climate change, if we're going to make moves forward in this, it requires a transparent, non-political, evidence based process to develop long-term, sustainable solutions.

The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 creates a $10 billion fund, the Housing Australia Future Fund, which, it is proposed, will provide a sustainable and ongoing funding stream, in perpetuity, to build the social and affordable homes Australians need. The objective of the fund is to build 20,000 social and 10,000 affordable homes over the next five years, with the fund expected to also provide $200 million for the repair and maintenance of and improvements to remote Indigenous housing; $100 million for crisis and domestic violence housing; and $30 million for veterans' housing and specialist services.

Additionally, the Australian government is developing a National Housing and Homelessness Plan to help more Australians access safe and affordable housing. It's a 10-year strategy designed to broadly assess issues constraining the current housing system. The national plan provides us with a chance to identify actions needed to address the significant challenges facing the housing and homelessness sectors.

The bills we are debating today will transform the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation into Housing Australia, as the national home for key housing programs, and expand its activities, and will establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, to provide independent advice to government on options to increase housing supply and affordability. The housing legislation package purports to offer a comprehensive suite of measures to get more social and affordable homes on the ground, with the government frequently stating that it signifies the most significant Australian government investment in housing in more than a decade.

Overall, these bills before us today are a step in the right direction. I do, though, fear that the scale of the problem is so daunting that the results they seek to deliver may be just a drop in the ocean. I also fear that political parrying will stop us making progress at all. Ten billion dollars and 30,000 homes over five years sounds like a big deal. But, in reality, we must acknowledge it is barely a drop in the ocean.

In terms of my broader concerns, there are two that I'd like to particularly call out. Firstly, the funding model proposed under this legislation only provides outright grants, so there is potential for rorting. In this context, the oversight structure guiding Housing Australia must be above reproach. We cannot afford for Australians to only lose faith in this system as they perceive that, potentially, consultants or profit-driven developers are the ones who truly win. Secondly, as the legislation current exists, it could overlap with other existing housing assistance schemes like rental assistance, and for this reason I'd like to better understand what the success measures will be for this fund.

This is a large sum of money with what appears to be little accountability as it currently stands. The independent housing affordability council is a good step. It will work with other bodies and make sure we have good data to make informed decisions. It is my hope then that the council will show some bravery, more bravery than many in this place, to assess the role tax policy and settings can play in hindering and assisting housing affordability.

Beyond the scope of the bills before us today, I would like to see the government show more leadership in a number of key areas, including tenants rights reform including no-fault evictions. As stated before, my community of North Sydney has a high concentration of renters, and we should be looking to make renting a viable, long-term option for families who want it. We could encourage this type of development in our community through schemes such as build-to-rent.

I would also encourage this government to actively consider how public policy might best balance differing needs between those who desire more high-density development in established suburbs, with the very real need to build more housing on greenfields sites. There are trade-offs which need to be balanced between quality of life, planned infrastructure and environmental protection—in particular, places like the Cumberland Plain, where endangered bushland unique to Western Sydney is under direct threat from urban growth. I also believe it would be to the benefit of all if this government could give significant consideration to mandatory inclusion zoning to ensure a minimum percentage of affordable housing in new development projects.

To achieve all that may be possible in this space, all levels of government, Housing Australia, registered community housing providers and the private sector must work together. Homelessness Australia, whilst welcoming the new capacity for policy leadership on housing, notes:

… while each body potentially has an important role to play, the legislative package lacks sufficient clarity about how each body relates to each other, and where the responsibility for policy leadership lies, particularly in relation to homelessness.

The current housing shortage is stark—an at-market shortfall of approximately 200,000 dwellings, an affordable shortfall of about 173,000 dwellings and a social housing shortfall of around 103,000 dwellings. These figures are only set to deteriorate further in coming years. Powering Australia has noted that delivering 30,000 social and affordable housing units will only meet a fraction of the unmet demand, which is estimated to be as high as 640,000 units.

A constituent recently called my office in tears because she's been knocked back by more than 50 apartment rental applications around the North Sydney electorate. In desperation, she is using Airbnb as an interim shelter since she lost her home in a house fire in 2022. She's not seeking subsidised or public housing. She has a job, and she can afford to rent. But, in reality, her daughter is living with her dad in Campbelltown, as she cannot provide consistent housing right now, so her family is split apart. She didn't ring to ask for anything. She just needed to know that we knew—that we in this House knew—how challenging the rental market is right now for real people.

In addition to all of this, until recent changes to the National Construction Code, Australia's housing stock has lagged behind that of many countries in terms of its thermal performance and the performance of heating, cooling and other energy systems. Inefficient buildings are unhealthy for occupants and lead to a range of poor respiratory and cognitive outcomes, particularly when inefficient fossil fuels are used indoors for heating or cooking. This fund, and the government's broader housing policy, is the ideal opportunity to ensure all new buildings built under this scheme are obliged to deliver net zero emissions from energy through efficient design, electrification, onsite renewables and the contracting of renewably generated grid power.

Furthermore, I am aware that some state policies are misaligned with the objective of building electrification, such as planning requirements mandating gas connections for new dwellings and, in the case of New South Wales, a BASIX requirement that perversely preferences gas stoves over electric. Clearly, given the urgency and complexity of the changes needed to improve energy performance and reduce emissions, including requirements for workforce developments, there's a real need for central coordination by the federal government.

I have seconded the amendment moved by the member for Fowler, and I wish to thank her for her considered review of this bill. I rise to speak in favour of that amendment because I believe her suggestions would strengthen the bill. Part of that amendment relates to the investment mandate of the bill, which hasn't even been released yet. As it currently stands, there is no certainty as to whether community housing providers must start developing these houses alone or whether the private sector can help contribute. I believe there should be every incentive built into our system to encourage co-investment between the two sectors. Each brings different expertise to the table.

Community housing providers, like St George Community Housing and Link Wentworth, who operate in my electorate, have their finger on the pulse of what is needed where and by whom. The private sector can lead in planning and development. The sectors should go hand in hand. This co-operation also applies to co-investment. It actually boggles my mind that a scheme like the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which started in 2008 during the global financial crisis, is being wound down during our current cost-of-living crisis. While NRAS, as it's known, is not perfect, there is something worth holding onto in its model of co-investment, to ensure that investment continues to flow, from mum-and-dad investors to community housing providers and developers. This is a challenge which requires many shoulders to the wheel.

In finishing, is this legislation perfect? No, it's not. But it's a start, and a start is what we must make. To delay would leave thousands of people languishing. Inaction is the only action that is unacceptable.

I would like to end on a reminder. A house is more than a dwelling. It is easy to get caught up in the size of the public policy problem before us, but, as policymakers in this place, we must remember that a house is a home. A home is a place that provides shelter. A home is where you raise your family. A home is where you create memories. In this context, then, if we can invest in securing more homes for all Australians, we will all be the better for it.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is pretty unbelievable to me that I'm standing here to appeal to other members of this place to support the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023. I thought, in the lead-up to the election, there were some things that we announced that may not have the full support of those opposite, but I thought this was one thing that no-one could argue with.

We all know the crisis that exists, and I guess it's disappointing, and maybe not surprising, that the opposition's decided that saying no is going to be their fallback position. But the Greens opposing it takes me back to a time I don't want to remember, when there was other legislation in this place—long before I was here—to take action on climate change, and they blocked something that would have also made a world of difference to our economy and our environment. That was in 2009 with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Like with our action on climate change, we on this side of the parliament are trying to shift things after a decade of nothing, a vacuum on housing policy. Those who were in government in the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison years thought the market would fix itself somehow. They were so wrong on that, and we are now paying the price as a community. Everybody is worse off when there are people who are struggling.

I want to share a story about young people that I was told just in the last few days. In the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, young people sometimes head to the city when they are stretching their wings and establishing themselves in university and then later in their careers. I heard a story from the inner west of someone going to look at a two-bedroom apartment. Two-bedroom apartments are really popular because you can share rent with someone else; it's not all on you, as it is with a one-bedroom apartment. They counted 71 people in the queue to view this apartment, including a single dad and his son. This young person said, 'How hard is it for that single dad and his son to compete with a couple of professionals who might also be looking for it?' The inequity in the current system in this crisis is evident every weekend when homes are open for inspection for rentals. This isn't even about people trying to buy a home; this is just about people trying to put a secure roof over their head somewhere close to where their work life is.

We've had no action from the Liberals and Nationals for a decade. No action to work with the states to do the one thing that can actually make a tangible difference in a reasonably short space of time—that is, to build more homes. Build them. They do take a bit of time, but they are one of the things we can do on the supply side. Yet those opposite are not interested in doing it, and, for whatever reason, the Greens are not willing to support more homes being built. As I say, I am just stunned that I am standing here, making a speech pointing that out. This should have had universal support. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that there is a really big need.

The previous speaker talked about emails she gets. These are not new emails. I went back several years through the emails I have had. Back on 8 April 2022, Jo got in touch with me to let me know how unaffordable it was to try and rent a home in the upper mountains. The increases she was talking about were extraordinary—increases of 25 per cent in the last year or so. That's April 2022. This is not something that just happened in 2023 or since May 2022 to now. This was happening. Then I go back to August 2021 and an email from a single mum who was trying to get something affordable right at the top of the mountains. Back then, she noticed a total inability to get something affordable within her income. She was a TAFE teacher. I've got emails from nurses, from teachers, from single parents, from women who have escaped domestic violence and are re-establishing their lives. They have been crying out for this, and we are delivering it.

In this bill are the first steps to shift things so that the inequity that currently exists can be transformed. Yet, for some reason, people in this place think that it's not good enough or it's not something they're willing to support. It just defies logic. We know that we can't fix all of this in one go, but the bill before us contains the biggest single investment in affordable and social housing that Australia has ever seen. It tackles the one part of the problem where we can do something that will help reasonably quickly; we can tackle this supply side and we can provide more social and affordable housing right across the country.

I feel like I shouldn't have to tell people why secure and affordable housing matters. We've had a lot of groups in parliament in the last week talking about mental health; that's one of the No. 1 reasons why it matters. People who have secure housing are better able to tackle their health issues, whether it's mental health issues or physical issues they face. They're just better placed because they're not worrying about a roof over their head or how long they're going to have a roof over their head. Long-term, affordable and secure housing creates a new beginning for any woman who has fled a relationship of violence. It's a new beginning for her and her children. I don't understand why anyone would want to stop that from happening and want to stop us from making some improvements in this way.

There's a tonne of research that shows the cost of providing stable and affordable housing, whether it's to the individual or the wider community or from government. We would call this investment, which is why it is done in the way that it is because these will be investments. All this research shows that the health outcomes are much better. We also see increased social participation from people. We see reduced incidents and interactions with law enforcement. We see better family relationships. We see improvements in education. All these things are key to breaking cycles of intergenerational disadvantage. At every level it's something that is better for people, better for our society and better for our community.

I've held forums in the last couple of years on a whole range of issues, whether on talking about wellbeing or on domestic violence or around mental health. Every single forum has identified housing as a key issue. For women over 55, the largest and fastest-growing group of homeless people—women of my age—and for every single group of people I've spoken to, like the young—those young ones who aren't even sure whether they can ever dare to dream of owning their own home; right now they're just thinking about a decent rental—the need for secure housing has come up in every single forum. It's come up when I've been talking to veterans and their families. There isn't a part of society that's not going to be touched by what the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 starts to put in place.

Even more specifically, in my community in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, $1 million of this funding, as it starts to be returned—because the fund is created, and it's making returns, and we're able to take out the funds we need—is going to go to my community for additional crisis accommodation. Anyone opposing this is saying to the people of the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, 'You don't deserve what has been committed to you.' I urge those opposite, the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens: please support this fund. Please do something that may not be perfect in your mind but you know is going to make a significant difference, and help us stop the 10 years of policy drift that this sector has seen that has landed us where we are. This is one really practical step we can take to start to turn things around.

Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my home state of Queensland, social housing currently makes up less than four per cent of the housing market. Last year the state government was found to be evicting vulnerable tenants to sell public housing stock off to the private market during a time when housing waitlists are soaring. Housing is treated as a commodity instead of a human right. Perhaps this is no surprise, as, according to the Electoral Commission, property developers have donated over $30 million and the banks have donated over $70 million to the major parties in the last 10 years. This means that the major political parties in Australia have an active stake in keeping the housing market the way that it currently is, a housing market that makes it easier for a property investor to purchase their sixth property than for a young person or a family to buy their first home.

The stories of people in my electorate provide insight into the pain and extent of the housing crisis. I would like to share one story in particular. Emma Howard is a disabled woman with mobility issues who has been struggling to find appropriate, accessible housing for a long time. When she first contacted our office, Emma had been forced to live in her car with her service dog, Badger, because the apartment she was provided by the department of housing was unsafe and did not cater to her disabilities. Emma lived in constant fear of her safety as she would not be able to use the stairs or the lifts in the case of a fire, but she and Badger had no other options. We were able to advocate for Emma, and fortunately, she is no longer living out of her car. However, she still has not been provided with a home that is fit for purpose for someone with a disability and who has suffered injuries that could have been avoided. There simply isn't an adequate supply of accessible social homes. In fact, they're almost non-existent. Any future social housing must be built to meet minimum standards of accessibility.

Countless renters also have reached out to express their concerns at the huge rent hikes they have experienced. I have heard of rent increases ranging from $80 a week all the way up to $400 a week. These stories range from students who are studying and working full-time to single parents balancing work and ever-increasing child care costs and families who are just doing their best to get by. There is a new layer of renters being impacted, as well. I heard from a couple who are both public servants on decent dual incomes who were priced out of their home and the community they had been part of for the last 15 years.

In my electorate of Brisbane we are at great risk of the affordability of housing worsening because of the upcoming 2032 Olympic and Paralympic games. The Olympics have been shown to increase housing costs in host cities across the world. In an electorate-wide survey that our office conducted, close to 80 per cent of respondents stated they believed that any infrastructure built with public money should stay in public hands. This includes the athletes village, which could be built as disability-accessible residential accommodation, not short-term accommodation, with the intention of it becoming social housing after the games conclude. This is an idea that was brought to us and championed by dozens of community members within the survey.

Incredibly, and even in the face of countless stories like Emma's, the government's Housing Australia Future Fund will actually worsen the shortage of social housing and cut its yearly housing funding. Let's break down why. Labor's plan will see $10 billion invested in a fund where they pay investment managers to put that money into the stock market in the hopes that it will generate a return. It's not a $10 billion direct investment in housing. It's a $10 billion gamble on the stock market, with spending on new homes capped at $500 million per year and not indexed to inflation. At best, this plan will only see three per cent of the current need in Australia addressed.

The Brisbane community are lucky to have organisations like Community Canteen, Valley Hearts and Coffee Brigade which work tirelessly to provide for unhoused and struggling individuals and families, but these organisations are being stretched further and further, being expected to make up the gaps in services left by the government. I want all those who contribute to the many support organisations in my electorate to know that I see you and I am so grateful for the immensely important work that you do in assisting the vulnerable. The time for bandaid solutions is over, and the Greens are calling for a minimum of $5 billion to be invested in social and affordable housing every year, indexed to inflation, and the removal of the $500 million spending cap.

To help those struggling right now, we want to see a national plan for renters and a commitment from the government and Prime Minister to put a national freeze on rent increases on the National Cabinet agenda. We also know that First Nations people and people with disabilities are disproportionately impacted by the housing crisis. In response to this, the Greens are seeking a $1 billion investment in remote Aboriginal housing over the next five years and to have all housing funded through this scheme meet minimum inclusive-design standards.

This crisis is not something far off in the future that we can deal with slowly, bit by bit. There are thousands of Australians who are homeless right now. There are far too many people and families in my electorate living in their cars, and one is too many. There are young people couch surfing because they cannot find an affordable rental right now. Our communities are not asking for the world; they're just asking for shelter. They are simply asking for the government to have their back.

Debate interrupted.