Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the most heartbreaking phone calls you can have as a member of parliament is from a woman fleeing a domestic violence situation—someone leaving their home with literally nothing more than the clothes on their back and their children, calling your electorate office and asking for assistance to get into emergency housing. Unfortunately, the prospect of that person getting into housing quickly is quite dim. If you look at the public housing waiting list in New South Wales, you'll see that the ordinary waiting list to get into public housing is anywhere between eight and 10 years. For emergency accommodation it's two years. We can certainly assist someone in getting into a homeless shelter, or the department will put them up in hotel accommodation, but that will last only a couple of weeks and then they're at the whim of the private rental market. We know that if a person is leaving a violent relationship they may have relied on their partner for financial support. If they're trying to look after a couple of kids, it's a difficult circumstance for anyone to be in, and the private rental market offers no assistance whatsoever.

Rents have been increasing at a dramatic rate in most cities and towns across the country. They increased by 13.8 per cent between June 2021 and June 2022. The number of Australians facing housing stress—and that is defined as a household with more than 30 per cent of household income devoted to paying either rent or a mortgage—has increased dramatically in recent years. For owners, the prospects are just as bleak. Many Australians now have significant mortgages that they've had to take out to get into the homeownership market in Australia. Of course, we know that interest rates, determined independently by the RBA, have been increasing in recent times and are forecast to increase further. The government knows and understands that this is putting enormous pressure on household budgets and on relationships and families across the country.

Housing is a fundamental human right. In a wealthy nation like Australia, all Australian citizens can expect access to a reasonable, affordable roof over their heads. Australians want governments that are willing to ensure that they have policies in place to provide that basic necessity of life, and that is the purpose of this bill. This is an investment in ensuring that the Australian government has the policy settings in place to provide all Australians with access to reasonable and affordable housing.

Unfortunately, the approach of coalition governments has been that they shouldn't intervene in housing markets, that we should be able to let the market rip and that that would produce efficient and fair outcomes. We all know that that is not the case. The market has not resolved the housing affordability issue in Australia, and anyone who thinks that the market can is living in a dream.

In fact, many coalition state governments—and I'm speaking, of course, of the one in New South Wales—have gone the opposite way. They've actually sold off public housing, particularly in areas around Sydney, so that the stock of public housing in Sydney is actually being reduced and people are being evicted from properties, which in many cases they have lived in for many, many years, and finding themselves either homeless or at the whims of the private rental market. That is unfair.

At a federal level, the former Liberal government cancelled a lot of projects that were put in place by the Rudd and Gillard governments to provide housing assistance for Australians. The National Rental Affordability Scheme was cancelled. The project that the Rudd government launched to build more public housing as a stimulus project and as part of the recovery from the global financial crisis—a project that that provided jobs and roofs over heads for people on low incomes—was, of course, cancelled. Many of the affordable housing measures that were put in place by the former Labor government were cancelled as well. The former government went back to that old coalition philosophy of letting the market rip, and as a result Australia now faces a housing affordability crisis.

This government will not stand by and allow a situation where Australians increasingly cannot afford a roof over their heads, where they struggle with rental stress or housing stress and, unfortunately, where growing numbers of Australians are couch-surfing, living in cars or living on the streets. We want to reduce the rate of homelessness. We want to make housing more affordable. We want to increase housing supply to ensure that we can achieve those goals, and this bill represents the government actively promoting policies to ensure that we have an increase in the stock of housing supply into the future.

The Housing Australia Future Fund will provide a $10 billion investment in housing construction into the future. The fund will be established and will operate in a similar manner to other sovereign funds administered by the Commonwealth. The investment returns will be invested in building additional housing stock—both public housing and affordable housing. The government is also committed to ensuring that we're building more housing specifically for veterans who've served our nation. Returns from the fund will provide a $30 million investment over five years to build housing and fund services for veterans who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. That initiative will provide sustainable funding to increase the housing supply and improve services for veterans.

These initiatives are still in their early design stage, but they're a priority for our government, and we're in consultation with key stakeholders to implement them as soon as possible. We're working hard to address that issue of homelessness. We also need to ensure that there are stronger linkages between providers, services, and Australians and new resources for veterans and for housing providers that are tailored to the experience of veterans' homelessness. I had the great fortune of launching this week Working with Veterans: A Toolkit for Community Housing Organisations. It is a joint initiative between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Community Housing Industry Association. Those new resources will strengthen referral pathways between providers, DVA, Open Arms and other ex-service organisations to help set an industry standard for providing housing service to veterans. As the peak body representing 170 not-for-profit community housing providers, CHIA's knowledge and connection to providers across Australia will ensure that that toolkit is up to date, relevant and linked to industry.

We know that too many veterans, unfortunately, are turning to DVA, Open Arms and government for support. It's hoped that these new resources will help address some of those trends. They complement efforts in this package to build housing and fund services for veterans who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. We know that, once someone becomes homeless, unfortunately, many other doors close. Finding a job becomes much harder. Financial strain increases. Getting access to basic essentials such as food, water, and health care becomes a struggle, and it can become a vicious cycle.

We need to make sure that we're providing more support not only for veterans who find themselves in these situations but for Australians more broadly. And that is what this bill is all about. It represents the Albanese Labor government's commitment to ensure that this government does all it can to provide that fundamental, basic human right that Australians need and deserve and should expect from government—a reasonably priced roof over their heads for themselves and their families. That is, importantly, what this particular bill will help us build into the future.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Congratulations to the government for making this housing legislation package a priority. We need a long-term solution to a problem that's developed over many decades. There are supply and structural challenges all along the housing continuum, from crisis accommodation, to social and community housing, to rental housing, to affordable housing and to homeownership. Having access to safe, stable accommodation contributes to the health and vitality of society, allowing people to experience safety and security, engage in school and work, and be active members of society. At the acute end of the continuum, safe housing is a prerequisite for successful support on a range of complex issues, including mental health, drugs and alcohol, and family breakdown.

Before 2022, I spent five years working in community services and saw firsthand the impact of insecure housing on the lives of people who are dealing with complex challenges. I witnessed the way losing secure housing can send people into a spiral: relationship breakdown, social isolation and mental ill health. People living with housing stress—that is, spending more than 30 per cent of their income on housing—live with the worry that they may not be able to sustain their housing. Even in my electorate of Curtin, which is relatively well off, 13 per cent of homeowners and 28 per cent of renters live with housing stress.

Research shows that housing is something that people take for granted until it's threatened. It's not something people say they value until they have experienced it being at risk. More than 9,000 Western Australians are currently experiencing homelessness on any given night, and more than 4,100 people access specialist homelessness services every day in Western Australia. In WA, there were more than 19,000 households on the social housing waitlist, including 4,000 priority applicants, in July 2022—19,000 households. These numbers have been steadily increasing since 2019. The average wait time for a social home is currently 113 weeks. In WA there's a current unmet need of 39,000 social and 19,000 affordable homes. On our current trajectory this will double in the next 15 years. The WA eligibility requirements for social housing are tougher than those in other states, so this probably masks a greater need.

The WA rental market is experiencing a critical shortage of supply. Rental vacancy rates have been sitting below one per cent in Perth and across many of our regions for 20 consecutive months. We would describe a balanced market as being between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent. There has been a 26 per cent increase in rental prices in Perth over two years to July 2022, which is terrifying for the third of my electorate who rent.

These statistics provide some context for the government's housing package. The government's commitment to 20,000 affordable homes and 10,000 social housing homes would meet the current need for WA only, which is about 10 per cent of the national population. It's clearly a good start and a bigger investment in housing supply than we've seen for a while.

The model being proposed for the Housing Australia Future Fund may well be an efficient use of capital if it has the desired effect of stimulating the ongoing growth of social and affordable housing supply. If the structure works, it will at least put in place something that can be added to in the future. To ensure that it does this, it will need to provide community housing providers and other institutional landlords with certainty. There's some work to be done on this.

Firstly, it needs to clearly define 'affordable housing' to clarify that the intent is that this is rental housing aimed at low-income earners. Secondly, it is not clear whether the annual distribution cap of $50 million also operates as a floor. It would provide greater certainty for the market if it was clear that $50 million will be distributed each year, even in years with poor returns. By indicating that government will dip into general revenue if required, investors will know their returns are secure, which would stimulate investment in housing. That's not an amendment that can be made in the House, but I encourage the Senate to consider it.

Similarly, the National Housing Accord, a shared ambition to build one million homes over five years, depends a huge amount on the state and private capital. I fear that it might be more aspirational than realistic. I hope that the WA government will rise to the challenge set by the Commonwealth government to address the housing issues in my home state.

The government guarantee for NHFIC bonds is currently close to its cap. Although default almost never happens, reviewing the cap on total bond finance annually would provide some certainty to community housing providers that they will continue to have access to low-cost capital. Certainly, a long-term commitment to housing is required to smooth out construction cycles. When we are at the peak of the economic cycle, we have the money but not the tradies. When we are at the trough of the economic cycle, we don't have the money.

A welcome part of the housing legislation package is the establishment of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. This independent statutory body can take a long-term view and identify the ongoing need and the most efficient funding models. It will be important that the members of the council act in the overall interest of the country, rather than defending different parts of the housing industry. It will also be important that the council has full independence. Housing a secretariat in Treasury may undermine this and its independence may be better served by being part of Housing Australia. This would give Housing Australia a strategic and research role, rather than just a delivery role.

There are also some issues with the transparency of the process of allocating funds to the states through the COAG Reform Fund. To avoid this being used in a discretionary way to meet other purposes, this allocation should be done through a transparent tender process with clear criteria so funds are allocated according to need and according to where they can be leveraged through co-investment by states.

Reviewing the effectiveness of the package after two years would also be wise. Its success depends significantly on the response from states and the market, and settings may need to be adjusted, especially after the national housing and homelessness plan is finalised and the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement is renegotiated. At that stage, we are likely to have a clearer picture of the need.

Is the housing legislation package enough? Probably not. A $10 billion commitment pales in comparison to the $290 billion the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation said would be required over the next two decades to meet the current and projected shortfall. Research from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute has also argued that an additional 727,000 social housing dwellings are required by 2036 nationwide or an annual average growth of 5.5 per cent to meet future projected need. The 20,000 houses over this period will only meet three per cent of that need. The Grattan Institute advocated the establishment of a $20 billion fund, providing an upfront gap subsidy, as opposed to an annual gap payment. So it's likely to not be enough, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. I'm generally not in favour of borrowing money to spend, but in this case there is such a need for housing in Australia that it should be prioritised, and the Housing Australia Future Fund may be an efficient way to access additional capital for housing by providing acceptable and secure returns on investment.

There are a number of issues that will need to be addressed in implementation, with significant weight probably falling on the new national housing supply and affordability council to provide independent advice on need. In the meantime, I commend the government for committing to start to address this fundamental need.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ROST () (): Members in this place will likely be familiar with my background, working in the homelessness sector as CEO of Catherine House, a women's homelessness service in Adelaide, and as CEO of Vinnies SA, including homelessness services for men and a domestic violence refuge for women and their children escaping domestic violence. I was also co-chair of the Adelaide Zero Project, which brought together all of the homelessness and housing services in the Adelaide CBD to work together to end rough sleeping. So I know a little bit about the homelessness and housing market, and I know a little bit about what works to resolve homelessness.

It should surprise no-one that the answer to homelessness is more housing—specifically, social and affordable housing. It should also surprise no-one that the best way to reduce the homelessness rate is to make sure that, when you are putting people into housing, you aren't pushing others into homelessness. We have a chronic and severe shortage of housing in this country. We have a supply problem. We also have an affordability problem, but we have a supply problem, and of course these two things are not unrelated. It isn't made any better by Airbnbs; in fact, in some areas this vacancy rate has caused significant shortage in the permanent rental market. But overall we have a shortage of housing stock that we need to address.

It is well known in this place that the fastest-growing cohort of people experiencing homelessness are women over the age of 55. Well, we used to say over 55; I think we say over 45 now. And I know this is well known because I hear people from all sides talking about it. No-one can pretend that they don't know how acute this is out there.

The Housing Australia Future Fund, which these bills will establish, will include $100 million for victims-survivors of family and domestic violence and those at risk. This includes older women, who, by the time they leave, often have no money, no superannuation, no resources and no place to go. In Australia, a third of people who seek assistance for homelessness cite family violence as their main reason for needing help from DV and homelessness services like those I used to run. At Catherine House, which is a homelessness service, not a DV-specific service, it was actually more like 50 per cent.

According to a report from feminist trailblazer and researcher Dr Anne Summers titled The choice: violence or poverty, on average, 9,000 survivors of domestic violence become homeless every year. Alarmingly, 7,700 survivors return to their abuser each year. On average, it takes a woman seven goes to leave. From my experience, the threat or reality of financial destitution and homelessness is a key driving force behind this shocking statistic. And this is on top of the many thousands we don't know about, who haven't left in the first place, often because they don't have the financial resources to escape safely, without ending up on the streets. That's just one reason why this bill is so important. This bill specifically carves out $100 million to build homes for victims-survivors of family and domestic violence and those at risk.

And, for all the rhetoric I hear about caring about women escaping domestic violence and caring about older women experiencing homelessness and older women in poverty, when the crunch comes and there's a bill before us to improve the lot of these very women they profess to care about, those opposite and the Greens tell us they will vote against it.

Another area I hear a lot about from those opposite is how much they care about veterans—those who have served our country and need our support, back in the community. We know that veterans are another cohort who have a higher risk of homelessness. Adelaide Zero Project have a specific focus on veteran homelessness. I have a number of fantastic organisations in Boothby that assist veterans experiencing a range of issues, including the Veteran Wellbeing Centre in Daw Park, which is a number of state funded and not-for-profit agencies providing a one-stop shop; the William Kibby VC Veterans Shed, where coordinator Barry Heffernan is unbelievably committed to helping veterans resolve whatever issues they might be having; and of course the RSLs.

Today I will mention the Andrew Russell Veteran Living centre, part of RSL Care SA, run by Nathan Klinge. This not-for-profit centre provides live-in emergency accommodation for veterans experiencing homelessness and helps them resolve the issues that brought them into homelessness and then find a housing outcome. The Andrew Russell Veteran Living Centre just achieved a milestone that is both heartwarming and shocking: 20,000 nights of emergency accommodation to veterans in South Australia. They do an amazing job, but it's really sad that this sort of service is needed to that extent. Of course, key to them being able to do their job is getting housing outcomes for the veterans who come to them; finding permanent housing outcomes for veterans so that, after one person has left, the next homeless veteran can come through their doors and find a safe place to sleep.

Organisations like this have long been calling for much greater investment in social and affordable housing. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill carves out $30 million of the fund to build housing and fund specialist services for veterans experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. Why would you vote against it? We need more social and affordable housing as a matter of priority.

Taken together, these bills are first step in implementing our election commitment to establish the Housing Australia Future Fund. This is the most significant investment in new social and affordable housing in a generation. It's needed. We have a housing supply problem, particularly at the bottom of the market, the social and affordable market. Everyone in this place can surely agree that action is needed to combat the housing pressures that too many Australians face after 10 years of dithering, 10 years of delay. I know it. I was one of those lobbying a deaf and uncaring government over that decade. Finally we are taking action. It's action designed for the long term, to have a generational impact.

The Albanese government understands safe and affordable understand safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of all Australians. Far too many Australians are being hit by growing rents. Far too many Australians are struggling to buy a home. Sadly, far too many Australians are facing or experiencing homelessness. That's why we have an ambitious housing reform agenda to ensure more Australians have a safe, affordable place to call home. The housing legislation package is a comprehensive suite of measures to get more social, affordable homes on the ground. It enables the most significant Australian government investment in housing in a generation.

I would ask those opposite and those on the crossbench: if you care about the community, about those experiencing homelessness or housing stress, about women escaping domestic violence, about veterans who have served our country, about remote Aboriginal communities, about frontline workers, then vote for the bill. Vote for this bill that will increase supply at the bottom of the market for those groups who most need it. If you support women escaping violence, vote for the bill. If you support veterans experiencing homelessness, vote for the bill. If you support frontline workers, vote for the bill. If you support remote Aboriginal communities, vote for the bill. By your actions you shall be known. Now is not the time to play political pointscoring with people's safety, their futures and their lives. Now is not the time to be negative for negative's sake. Now is not the time to throw away good in the pursuit of an unachievable perfect or to make a political point. People need housing. We have a supply problem. We have an affordability problem. This is the start of addressing that problem. I commend the bills to the House.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government had an opportunity in their budget last year to directly fund all kinds of measures they might like to in regard to housing. Instead, what we have before us is a bill—the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023—that is effectively a conjuring trick, a sort of tricky accountant's way of making a commitment to do something, miraculously without costing the government any money whatsoever. We on this side of the chamber view that with a great deal of scepticism.

I'll come to that in a moment, but I want to start by making some broad comments about housing. In the last parliament, I served on the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, which was chaired by the former member for Mackellar, and participated in an inquiry into the issue of housing affordability in this country. I commend the findings of the report of that inquiry to this House. It's certainly a very significant challenge for all of us to grapple with as policymakers: how do we make the Australian dream of homeownership attainable for all those who want it, particularly younger people, who at the moment are finding it almost impossible to get into the housing market? Indeed, the supply challenges—which even the government in this debate seem to now concede, though that wasn't necessarily the position of Labor members participating in that inquiry—are significant. They relate to all levels of government and a whole range of other factors, and they are certainly things that I wish we had the opportunity to address in debates in this chamber. Instead of that, we're debating this bill.

Increasingly the data, including the recent census, is showing us that people are taking longer and longer to save to get into the housing market. I find that those on the Left of politics in some ways are not so much against people not getting the financial independence of homeownership. I think that there is a school of thought in our politics that it is good for big government if people are kept out of the economic independence of owning their own home. If people are resigned to renting for the rest of their lives, maybe that'll mean they'll vote for a lot more government to look after them because they won't have the independence to look after themselves.

The greatest legacy of the Menzies era was the transformation of people's economic futures through their ability to get into the housing market, own their own home and therefore be in control of their own economic destiny and their own future. It's absolutely fundamental to the political philosophy of the party I'm so proudly a member of to give people that individual empowerment and choice and make sure that they are in control of their own destiny and do not have to rely on some government. That is fundamental to the differences between those of us on this side of the House and those who are putting forward this proposal that purportedly has something to do with helping people with housing.

As I say, the particular measures that the government are saying will be supported by this bill are a separate point and a separate debate that could be had. There are no doubt worthy things that the government say they're going to spend money on through this bill, but they could have done all that through a budget appropriation. You could be spending X hundred million dollars a year on those sorts of measures if you want to, but you would have to account for it properly in the budget. You'd have to say, 'Hey, you know, we're spending this amount of extra money on these worthy initiatives, because that's what it should be spent on.' That would mean the government would have to either run a higher deficit, increase taxes or cut expenditure somewhere else. If they were serious, they'd be prepared to take on those serious challenges that befall a government and particularly a treasurer when putting together a budget.

Instead we have this trickery of saying, 'Well, we're going to borrow money at a certain rate, invest it and make more from it than we will pay for the debt that we will have encumbered ourselves with, and that miraculously creates a pool of funds that we can then spend on all these housing initiatives.' Imagine if you extrapolated that to the entirety of government expenditure. If this model works, why don't we just go and borrow many, many trillions of dollars, invest those trillions of dollars so brilliantly that we make more money from the investment than the cost of that capital, and use that to finance the entirety of government? We can get rid of all taxes. We don't need to tax people anymore. We can just choose how much money we borrow and therefore, by a miraculous outcome, how much money the government will earn on the gap between the return on investing that money and the cost of borrowing that money, and we can do absolutely everything that we want. We could achieve absolutely everything.

What a breakthrough revelation moment we are having here: let's just borrow an indiscriminate amount of money and earn more on it than what it cost us to borrow and pay for all of government—it's completely farcical. But that is what the proposition is in this bill. And that is fundamentally why we, of course, as responsible economic managers in the coalition, don't support it. It's actually frightening, because this bill literally says, 'Let's just go and borrow $10 billion, put it on the government balance sheet as debt and give it to the Future Fund.' Of course, they'll definitely make a higher return from it than the cost of borrowing it. Beyond question, apparently, that will happen—forever. Then the gap is what we get to spend on all these things that we're not prepared to put in the budget and finance through the usual budget processes. What economic cowardice that is and what economic recklessness that is. There is no way that we could possibly stand by and support the government doing this.

Without reflecting on anyone in the Future Fund—they've done a great job over the last years and decades, led very ably by a former member of this House—we know the chair of the Future Fund has already made some very candid comments about the future risk profile of the funds that they have under management and the general economic outlook. We know that interest rates are going up. The government's borrowing rate is increasing, and we've got no idea where the terminus of that is going to be.

What we're going through right now with this rapid escalation in interest rates is a great lesson—and maybe, to be fair, to be slightly charitable to the government, when they made the decision for this cowboy policy, it was before the experience of the last 12 months, and how dramatically markets can shift, and particularly how dramatically debt markets versus equity markets can change. The orthodoxy of the past decade with regard to the cost of capital and the return on capital is completely out the window right now with what's happening in markets of all forms. So the assumptions and the laziness of this when it was announced by the then opposition leader are completely different today than they would have been when it was conceived.

Whilst I don't tend to encourage people breaking election promises, despite the fact the government should be appropriately held to account for making a reckless promise, this is the kind of promise they absolutely should break. It is frightening looking at what is happening in some of the markets that we were assuming were going to behave in a certain way into the future. Far from making the sort of return that we believed this would—last year it would have lost money; things could only get worse into the future—borrowing money at more than four per cent and just assuming that that money invested can return better than that is not the outlook that we would say exists with any sort of certainty whatsoever. And, whilst we of course don't hope for it to occur, the risk is higher than ever right now for all sorts of funds under management having negative returns in the near future.

We're asked in this debate in this chamber to authorise borrowing $10 billion on this promise. The speakers in favour of it are talking about how they're going to spend the money. Well, let's talk about whether there will be any money—or, worse still, whether we're going to be borrowing an amount of money and the return on it goes backwards. So, in an effort to spend money on housing, we instead have the real likelihood of borrowing money and having the cost of the negative return on that hitting our budget and things going backwards. And that is really frightening. Once we borrow this $10 billion, unlike some of the mistakes that we might anticipate the government making, this is a very difficult hole to dig our way out of. Once we've borrowed that money, it needs to be paid back; we need to meet the interest servicing charges on it.

Maybe, for the government, $10 billion isn't a lot of money. Well, there are a lot of households out there who are struggling to pay mortgages, utility bills and grocery bills. People are making awful decisions—like no longer buying fresh vegetables but buying frozen vegetables because they're cheaper—because they've got to make those changes in their household budget. Those people think that $10 billion is a lot of money. Being cavalier with it, and just assuming that you can borrow it—apparently, with no risk whatsoever—and make a higher return than the bond rate, is completely ridiculous and completely reckless. And it's absolutely lazy policymaking.

We are very open-minded to all kinds of sensible investments, in the housing crisis that we've got. They're not as simple as reflected in the commentary around this bill. Nonetheless, this is a very important topic. For the people speaking for this to hurl criticism suggesting that we don't support appropriately investing in housing for veterans or victims of family domestic violence is obviously ludicrous and a disgusting and an appalling allegation with no basis whatsoever.

And that's not what this bill is about. This bill is about just assuming that you can borrow money, get a better return on it than the cost of it, and then use the money, instead of actually making strong, sensible decisions, within the normal processes of budgetary decision-making, to say: 'Housing is important enough for us to carve out a certain amount of money, against all the other priorities we've got around revenue raising, expenditure and deficit reduction, so that we are going to invest, each year, hundreds of millions of dollars in these housing initiatives.'

The government hasn't been prepared to do that. Instead, they've come up with this tricky accounting which says that there's this free money you can create just by miraculously borrowing, earning more on it and therefore spending the gap. Well, we will find out, of course, if this bill passes the parliament, what the actuals end up being there. But it is a great fear of mine that we now have seeping into the political culture this sort of Whitlamesque attitude to Commonwealth finances, where there are no consequences for borrowing money and all of our problems can be solved by all this complete accounting trickery.

If we brought this approach to the challenges of government, then we would be incurring trillions and trillions of dollars of debt and assuming that we could just get a standard return on that and pay for the entirety of government. That is completely fanciful. Obviously, there is no way that you could operate government finances like that.

The gutlessness of not being prepared to put real money into this problem—to create this sort of fictitious revenue stream that is not based on anything other than hope—is completely cowardly. And I would call on the government to properly resource, in the budget proper, expenditure on housing that they believe is going to make a difference. Then we will look at those proposals and determine our own position on them.

I look forward to the very comprehensive policy position that we will take to the next election around helping people to buy their own home and get out of the trap that Labor want them to be in, of perpetually renting and being reliant on government, rather than having their own economic independence. And that's the aspiration of Australians: they want their economic independence. They don't want to be owned and controlled by government.

But this bill is nothing to do with specific measures around housing. It is a complete cop-out. It is absolutely cowardly. It is saying: 'We're not prepared to make tough decisions within the budgetary framework, so instead we'll come up with this magic-pudding economics of borrowing money and earning more than the cost of it, and then we can spend that money.' We have to stand up to this, right here, right now. And that is why I urge the House not to support the second reading of this bill.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Sturt. The question is that the amendment be disagreed to, and I call the member for Gough Whitlam's old seat, Werriwa!

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker Freelander. I am very proud to be the representative for Werriwa!

I rise to make my contribution on 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. It's interesting, reflecting on the contributions of other members, just how often it has to be a Labor government who makes the decisions to ensure that citizens of this country are looked after and have housing as a right—it is a human right for everyone in this country. Unfortunately, the constituents of Werriwa are acutely aware of the consequences of inaction by federal and state Liberal governments over the last 10 years and what that's meant for housing affordability and availability.

Werriwa's suburbs often make the list of the top 10 suburbs in New South Wales for mortgage and rental stress. My friend the member for Macarthur unfortunately also has suburbs on that list. That's why our community voted for the Albanese government's comprehensive housing plan at the election. This bill is another tranche of policies to start the repair of the housing market and make housing available to all Australians. Australians deserve access to safe and affordable housing. We know that as cost-of-living pressures mount Australians are being hit by increasing rents and growing mortgage rates, and many are struggling to buy a home. This has led to increased homelessness throughout the country.

There are now approximately 116,000 Australians experiencing homelessness. According to a recent report by Launch Housing, conducted by the University of New South Wales and the University of Queensland, the number of those accessing specialist homelessness services has increased by eight per cent since 2017. The fastest-growing groups accessing services are First Nations Australians and people with mental illness, with those groups growing by over 20 per cent. Housing affordability stress is increasingly becoming a reason why people are accessing homelessness services. The Albanese government understands how important it is to have affordable, suitable housing so that people are safe and can then access education and employment. To live without the stress of where they will sleep and what happens next is necessary to enjoy and live life well.

We have already implemented the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which has helped more than 1,600 Australians into homeownership. We reached a landmark national housing accord with a shared ambition to build over one million well-located homes from 2024, with an additional $350 million of Commonwealth funding that will be equally matched by the states to deliver 10,000 affordable homes. We widened the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, which has up to $575 million 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 housing outcomes across the state. We're implementing the help-to-buy program to help Australians into houses sooner. And we've only been in government eight months.

The Albanese government and the Minister for Housing understand the importance and need to move quickly to meet the challenges of the housing affordability and availability crisis. These bills are the next step in this plan. Our government understands that a housing crisis is not just a social crisis; it also has wide-ranging economic consequences. The more pressure in the housing market, the further away workers must move from their place of employment, the harder it becomes for businesses to hire and the less disposable income people have overall. More importantly, it's less time they have with their families and in their communities, lowering their standard of living. It has serious ramifications for the Australian economy as well as the social fabric of our country. Australia prides itself on being a fair and egalitarian country, but can we really say that while thousands of Australians are facing homelessness, are homeless or are living in social housing that is in urgent need of repair?

In my community, I constantly receive calls from constituents about long waiting lists for social housing. Social housing is there to support the most vulnerable, and both federal and state governments have a responsibility to support Australians in their most difficult times. In south-west Sydney, due to the limitations of state and federal governments, social housing waiting lists are up to 20 years long—that's two generations. Rentals are impossible to find, expensive and in disrepair.

These bills are designed to deliver on that responsibility and to deliver on our 2022 election promises. This legislation will set up the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion fund that will be invested, with the returns to fund social and affordable housing. These returns will help deliver our government's commitment to 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the first five years of its operation, 20,000 of which will be social housing, with 4,000 allocated for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence as well as older women at risk of homelessness. The remaining 10,000 will be affordable housing for our front-line workers, who have worked tirelessly and selflessly during the difficult past few years. The fund's returns will also provide $200 million over the next five years to address housing needs in remote and Indigenous communities and $100 million for crisis and transitional housing for women and children impacted by domestic violence. The fund will be required to undergo a review every five years to assess the impact it's having on Australian housing needs.

Australia is facing a huge challenge, and the Albanese government understands this. The Housing Australia Future Fund is one step in addressing the systematic issues in housing, but we also understand that the issue must be approached from multiple directions, and the government is prepared to use all of those options to help solve the issue. The legislation will establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, which will be an independent statutory advisory body. Such a body is necessary to provide independent expert advice to the government and the minister on housing supply and how affordability and supply can be improved. The council will provide advice on the allocation of returns from the Housing Australia Future Fund. It will also help the Commonwealth play a leadership role in addressing the housing challenges facing Australia.

While many aspects of social housing are the responsibilities of state and territory governments, the federal government can play a role in facilitating and improving housing outcomes. The Albanese government has maintained a strong culture of collaboration with the state and territory governments, from disaster funding to health, energy and cost of living. Housing will be no exception. We will work and have worked to maximise the impact of all levels of government to improve the lives of Australians. The council is set to be established on 1 July this year, but an interim non-statutory council has already been established so the important work can begin.

Australians expect the Albanese government to act on this issue, and we are delivering, from the measures that we've already delivered in the last eight months to this legislation. The work to ensure social and affordable housing is accessible by all Australians does not stop, and the Albanese government will continue to tackle the issue. I commend the bills to the House.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on 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. I think every person in this place knows the housing crisis in our country is one of the most pressing issues of our time. The lack of affordable housing is adversely affecting the lives of many people in the cities and, very much, in the regions, including in my electorate of Mayo. It is a crisis that continues to grow without abatement, thwarting the ability of communities to grow and prosper. The financial burden stemming from this crisis is forcing generations into a life without homeownership, entrenching intergenerational poverty and furthering the equity divide across our country. It's hard to believe that, when I was a young woman, homeownership was a real and tangible goal, and that goal has gone. My three children really don't expect to own a home of their own. It's just not in their vision. They're educated. And yet, when I was the age of my oldest child, who is 23, I had already owned one home and I was building a second. It's just extraordinary what we've done in, really, one generation.

The government's commitment to 30,000 new social and affordable dwellings over the next five years is a step in the right direction, but I must say I don't think it goes far enough. And there's one chink in the armour, which I'm going to talk about. I'm concerned that before we actually get to those houses we're going to be in a far worse position, because unfortunately the 30,000 dwellings that have been committed to will barely replenish the National Rental Affordability Scheme, NRAS. This is going to expire, and many of its homes are going to age out before we have new homes built. We're talking about publicly available data. Around 24,000 homes are expected to age out from mid-2022 and nearly 18,000 homes from June this year.

I have raised this directly with the minister. I think there's an assumption that those NRAS properties will somehow stay in the social and affordable housing bubble. I think it's really quite bullish to assume that and we could be in for some rocky waters. If we're serious about affordable housing, we need to retain these homes; otherwise we don't have a net gain. The population has increased and the pressures on households are far more acute now than, say, a decade ago, and that's before we've even considered the needs of the 162,000 people who are on the social housing list.

I think this proposal is excellent. I've got to say a big part of the problem we're trying to fix now is because around nine years ago—I think it was in the 2014 budget—we had a cut to NRAS. We weren't building any more houses, so, wherever participants were on their 10-year contract, those arrangements were going to age out. We haven't had any new housing stock, and in subsequent years we have largely had policies that have increased the demand side of housing without addressing the supply side. It's really frustrating, and none of this is an issue that has been created in the last year. We're talking about a decade of public policy that has got us to the place we are now. So, with respect to NRAS, I would say to the government: if you have contracts in place that will age out over the next couple of years and if you have willing owners of those properties—the properties are not all sitting with NGOs—why won't you have the conversations and see if you can extend those contracts for five years or so?

With trepidation, our nation is openly discussing the impossible increases in the cost of living and the very real risk of increasing household debt. One thing that I don't think we're talking enough about is the mortgage cliff that is coming this year for so many homeowners, particularly homeowners in the first two or three years of their mortgage who locked in interest rates through to this year because of the Reserve Bank's announcements that there would be no movement on interest rates until 2024. My goodness, how wrong we were there! In my community there's real concern about people moving off their fixed rates and onto the current rates. With the most recent announcement by the Reserve Bank that we're potentially going to see more interest rate rises, there's a real fear of a recession. Analysis by KPMG suggests that approximately 800,000 loans taken out by people who took advantage of the record low fixed interest rates in 2020 and 2021 will be hit with a mortgage repayment cliff. As I said, many of these loans were taken out on the advice of our own Reserve Bank governor, but we have an impending financial disaster of proportions not seen in our recent history. In fact, I was watching a video last night where people were comparing the current situation to 1990. I was a young person in 1990; I was just 18 years of age. I remember those huge interest rates and many people selling their home because they just couldn't afford the mortgage repayments.

The concern now, though, is that the value of houses compared to people's annual income has skyrocketed. It doesn't matter where you are in Australia. When I was a young woman house values were around three times the average salary. We're now seeing in Australia in many places it is more than 10 times. We're going to get to a point where many people can't afford to sell because their house has dropped in value and is lower than the mortgage that they owe. It's going to be a terrible time for so many. This is an issue we desperately need to address.

The analysis shows that mums and dads around the country are facing an average annual interest rate increase of $16,500. Further interest rate increases will only exacerbate this problem, and they're expected to cost the economy $20 billion.

In my own electorate there was a huge population increase between 2016 and 2021, with over 33,000 people moving into my electorate, including more than 10,000 additional families moving into the area. We welcome these people with open arms, but this has made rental access incredibly difficult and rental payments have risen to close to 50 per cent of the weekly median income. This just isn't sustainable.

The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund is a good start, but it cannot be the endgame. While these aims are positive, I do want to ensure that the regions are not left behind, as social and affordable housing programs have historically favoured metropolitan areas. Research has shown that the lack of housing in the regions is causing significant productivity losses and community pain. I will continue to urge all levels of government to ensure we have resources for affordable housing to help address homelessness and I urge the federal government to increase rental assistance and provide more federal funding for social housing support, particularly in the regions.

People are wanting to take jobs on Kangaroo Island and businesses there are desperate to hire, but there's nowhere to house people—nowhere at all. The Housing Australia Future Fund is an important step in the right direction and, equally, it is important to require the fund to allocate funding proportionate to the percentage of Australians who live in regional or remote Australia, which is currently 18 per cent.

I support these bills. This can't be the only thing we do. I think we need to work with mum-and-dad investors as well to see whether there's a way that we can have some sort of partnership with those people who want to build individual affordable houses rather than this just being large NGOs who are delivering affordable housing. We have a housing crisis right around Australia. It is felt by families, by older Australians and certainly by young people, who feel that they have been robbed of the Australian dream.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've been in the midst of a housing crisis for far too long in this country. Right now people are struggling to find an affordable roof over their head, whether that's buying a home or renting a home. It should not be this hard for people in Australia to find a place to live. It is beyond time for action and for real partnerships across all levels of government, industry and community to solve this problem. That's what this suite of housing legislation goes to today—to solving this problem.

We're a great country, but it is to our shame that homelessness is increasing in this country. We must do better to leave nobody behind. This reform is about making sure we don't leave people behind and building a better future for everyone, which is of course what the Albanese Labor government committed to do when we were elected.

There are many young families and students living in my electorate of Chisholm. They are enrolled at Monash and Deakin universities. They are desperately worried about where they will live, particularly as we see the return of international students to our community. The housing crisis is acutely felt by particular cohorts in my community. I'm looking forward to seeing more houses built so that people are able to enjoy the time they spend at university and spend in my community.

People raise with me the issue of needing good, affordable housing all the time. It is really important to me, and I'm so glad that these bills are actually doing something about this problem, which we have seen grow over time. A few months ago I welcomed the Treasurer to Chisholm and I introduced him to the Ashburton, Ashwood and Chadstone Public Tenants Group and the Ashwood Chadstone Partnership Group, which includes charities, service providers, Neighbourhood Houses and local councils. We had a really wonderful roundtable to discuss what we need to do together to ensure we have resilient communities and to make sure that we are providing homes for people who need them, especially those who are marginalised in the community or who might find accessing housing more difficult for a range of reasons, such as escaping family and domestic violence. The housing accord and this local roundtable was a really significant moment for my community and for our nation.

Our government understands that safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of Australians. We have seen growing rents, the struggle to buy a home and the increase of homelessness. This is an ambitious reform. This is about making sure Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home. This housing legislation package is a comprehensive suite of measures to build more social and affordable homes. It enables one of the most significant Australian government investments in housing in a generation, and we are not wasting a moment in doing what we can to build the houses that people in our communities desperately need.

These bills implement our commitment to establish the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to provide a stream of funding to ensure there is a pipeline of new social and affordable housing for Australians in need. This will transform the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation into Housing Australia as the national home for key housing programs and expand its activities. These bills establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent advice to government on ways to increase housing supply and affordability.

These commitments are part of our broader housing reform agenda. We have reached our landmark National Housing Accord, which is a shared ambition to build a million well-located homes over five years from 2024, with $350 million as well 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 have widened the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and made up to $575 million immediately available to invest in social and affordable housing. We are developing a national housing and homelessness plan to set short-, medium- and long-term goals to improve housing outcomes across Australia. The help-to-buy program will reduce the cost of buying a home and help people into a home sooner.

To solve the problem of housing affordability and the shortfall in supply of housing in this country requires action. That is what these bills go to. We are taking responsibility for people in our communities by making sure we have a vision for not just now and the medium term but the long term of this country. I am really pleased and proud to support these bills today.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Y (—) (): I rise to speak on these three bills—the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. The opposition have announced that we will be supporting the latter two, so I will be confining my comments to the first of these three bills, the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill, because I think it raises quite a number of issues that I'm not sure that we know the answers to.

Homeownership in Australia, I think, is the foundation—the bricks and the mortar—on which our society was built. The aspiration of owning a home in Australia has been one of the foundation stones—the ability for people to raise families on a suburban block where their kids can kick the football around. I accept block sizes are getting much smaller nowadays, but a man's house is his castle—all those cliches you can use in a debate like this, which I think really go to the Australian success story and one of the reasons our Australian society is so successful. Millions of Australians have raised their children, their families, on that block of land and in that house, and hundreds of thousands of Australians have used the equity in that house as the stepping stone into business, to found a new enterprise.

One of the great regrets I have about the remote Indigenous communities that I have in my electorate is that, because it's community land, they can't own their own houses, and they are condemned, in a way, to rental accommodation at the moment. They can't own their own house, which means they are unable to talk to a bank and say: 'What's my house worth? Can I build a hairdressing shop down the street or whatever?' I know that is getting off the debate, but it is linked to this idea that homeownership is a secure source of wealth on which to build your life.

I think this bill gives up a bit on that dream of homeownership and says, 'Well, actually what we need is rental accommodation.' It doesn't specifically say that, but it seems to me to be leading down that line of saying, 'Give up on the aspirations.' It's really hard for a worker, a family or someone on welfare to be in rental accommodation, pay the rent every week and raise the deposit for a home so they can actually turn those rental payments into payments to pay down their loan and eventually own their house. I would prefer that there be more emphasis on getting people into their own homes than on getting them into other people's homes.

Of course, in the last three years of government, we helped 300,000 people to get into their houses, so their payments each week or each month go to actually paying off their houses. One of these programs, of course, was the homeowners scheme, but it isn't the only one that helps people down that pathway. I think that's quite a remarkable achievement.

It's worth recalling that at the beginning of the COVID virus there were many predictions by economists around Australia that the Australian housing market was going to collapse because we were going to stop the immigration program, we would have empty houses everywhere and builders would be out of work—all those things. Sure, the government stepped in and made a difference there with the new homeowners scheme. but there was something that all the economists missed—or all the ones I was reading, at least. Five hundred thousand Australians decided to come home, because Australia looked a pretty safe place to be. They were right. Largely these were expats. They came back, and they were cashed up, and they soaked up a lot of the housing stock. I fully accept that we have real difficulties in Australian society today. I expect, though, that there will be a new wave of Aussies who will go overseas to live for a period of time and actually come out of the housing market over the next five years. I think that should be part of the consideration of all of these things.

One of the things I'm always concerned about is mission creep. This is something that happens at the Commonwealth level so often, and this is the perfect instance. Social housing and welfare housing—low-income housing—have clearly been the responsibility of state governments, just as state schools and state hospitals have been the responsibility of state governments. But increasingly, on both sides of politics, when the Commonwealth has seen the states failing in their duty, we've stepped in, and guess what—what's the next thing? We own the problem. Increasingly that's what we're doing with housing as well. We step in because states have largely gotten out of social housing. In my own state of South Australia we had a premier for 26½ years, Sir Thomas Playford. He invested heavily in the South Australian Housing Trust. He built places like Elizabeth, like Whyalla. There was a whole lot of Housing Trust homes going on. Over the years successive governments of both political persuasions—even though in South Australia, sadly, I must report, it is nearly always the Labor Party; they seem to be the party of government in South Australia—have sold off the housing stock. They have exited the scene and turned around and said to the Commonwealth, 'You have to help us out.'

I accept there is a problem and that we have been there before the current government but this is really upping the ante. This bill is now saying that the Commonwealth will go out and borrow $10 billion and start trickling that back into supporting social housing. Firstly, on the issue of that $10 billion, it is worth remarking that, in the period I have been in this parliament, which is over 15 years now, we used to be talking about millions but now we are talking about billions. It is almost as if the numbers in front of them haven't changed. There are a thousand implications in talking about millions and billions. It is a thousand times as much. Ten billion dollars is $10,000 million. That is a lot of loot. It has a ring to it. I see the member for Durack nodding. It has a ring to it of the hollow men: '$3 billion won't do it; perhaps $5 billion; I know, let's go for $10 billion; we'll go right over the top'. I think there is a bit of over exuberance going on here.

Another concern is that governments of both political persuasions have indulged in this pathway of going off budget by saying that we are buying an asset, so we are borrowing money but we own an asset now and that doesn't need to be in the budget. The most spectacular example of that would be the NBN, but it is probably a fair assumption that the Commonwealth owns a fair kind of asset there. Generally speaking, these off-budget expenditures to acquire assets which are income earning are physical assets that you can sort of touch and feel. You can see what it is worth and, if you don't like it, you can sell it off. I don't think that is the case with this Future Housing Fund. We are borrowing money at the government bond rate, which currently is 3.8 per cent, close to four per cent—that is, $400 million a year. That will probably be locked in for 10 years despite whichever way borrowing rates go and depending on when the money is borrowed, of course, and that is a liquid scene.

The concept of giving it to the Australia Future Fund to invest is good. My colleagues have made the point that the Future Fund is up and down and lost 3.7 per cent last year. But it has had a pretty good track record and, from my point of view, that is not unreasonable place to park that money. Why would you borrow money to park money? That is a little odd; I'm not sure about that. Basically the government is asking us to take a bet that the Future Fund performance will exceed the borrowing rate.

Another concern I have in this issue is the erosion of the real-dollar value. Currently the inflation rate is 7.8 per cent. If you are going to lose $400,000—we don't know what the Future Fund is going to do—and then devalue the pool by 7.8 per cent, by the time we get to the end of the year, virtually nothing will have been spent and we will already be down below $9 billion. I point out that $9 billion is $1,000 million less than $10 billion. These are big sums. It is a policy that is leading us in a couple of wrong directions. It is leading us away from home ownership. It is letting the states off the hook. The states will, presumably, line up for this money, and they will put it where they see best—for either the good of the people or their political advantage. Consequently, the Commonwealth has just given them a pool of money to use for their purposes. That's why I believe there are enough concerns in this area for me to not support the bill—that we go along this pathway of propping up state governments, that we give up on the idea of Australian homeownership. I think that's the most central point.

Government policy should be about owning the keys, getting your own keys to your own door, your own life or your family and the ability to build a net wealth for the foundations of your family. It's one of the reasons the Liberal Party is in favour of people being able to borrow against their superannuation. In your superannuation you can invest in anyone else's house but your own. That seems preposterous to me. The proposal that we put forward before the last election would require someone, if they had drawn down on their superannuation fund, to actually pay that fund back if they sold the house. I think that was very, very good policy. I am very wary of people tapping into their superannuation fund for other reasons—to fund a European trip, the retiling of the bathroom or whatever it might be—but investing in the bricks and mortar of a house, history will tell you, is one of the best investments you will ever make. I think the proposal of drawing down on superannuation has great merit. I think we would be far wiser in this parliament if we were pursuing that now rather than this proposal. I will be opposing the bills.

Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills. I listened intently to the member for Grey's contribution, and I thank him for it. It is extraordinary, however, that, faced with the housing affordability crisis, his answer is: 'What about mission creep? Mission creep is something that we need to consider.' We on this side of the House recognise that the housing affordability crisis we are in at the moment requires all levels of government to work together. While the problem is complex, it ought not be intractable. That's the key here—not to be concerned about mission creep but to be working with all levels of government to make sure that people can afford their own home. It is extraordinary to hear from those opposite their concern about Commonwealth funding in this space when they were willing to find people's renovations to their homes and now they are unwilling to help fund people getting into their first home.

My parents worked hard, saved up and were able to buy a house four years after arriving in this country. They still live there today. It's a modest three-bedroom townhouse. They never had enough money to renovate it, so the tiles in the bathroom are very, very retro. While my childhood home won't win any design awards, it was important to us. It was the foundation on which the success of my family was built. It gave us the security, stability and a sense of community. That is the importance of a place to call home.

It's not unique to my family; housing is the bedrock of the lives of so many people in Australia. I would like to quote from the Productivity Commission report into housing released in August last year:

Housing is a basic human need and is central to our physical and mental health and quality of life.

But we know it homeownership is getting harder and harder for so many people. The great Australian dream is becoming just a pipedream. The challenges of paying a mortgage are felt most acutely in electorates like mine in Sydney; 24.8 per cent of households in Reid are in mortgage stress—that is, their mortgage repayments are above 30 per cent of their household income. That is significantly more than the rest of Australia, which sits at 14½ per cent. These figures are from 2021, before the current interest rate rises.

While the story around house prices is what fills newspaper columns, it's rents that really reflect the cost of housing. I quote again from the Productivity Commission report:

About a quarter of Australians rent in the private market. More Australians are renting, for more of their lives, than in the past.

Year on year, rents in my electorate are rising. In Lidcombe they're up 12.2 per cent, in Homebush they're up 13 per cent and in Breakfast Point they're up 16 per cent. Housing is chewing up more and more of household income. And, when it comes to social and affordable housing, in New South Wales the need is acute. There are more than 51,000 applicants on the waitlist, with 6,500 applicants given priority status. That's 6,500 priority applicants left waiting. They are the most vulnerable: women and children fleeing domestic violence, and people with disabilities. For those not deemed a priority, they're expected waiting time is more than 10 years. Imagine waiting 10 years for a place to call home.

The housing affordability crisis has been around for a long time. I am going to quote from Jason Falinski, the former member for Mackellar:

… home ownership, one of the building blocks of Australian society, has been falling for the last 30 years. In my view, this represents an urgent moral call for action by governments of all levels to restore the Australian dream for this generation and the ones that follow.

He didn't see this as mission creep; he saw this as something that was core to what the Commonwealth and state governments ought to be doing. And he said this in 2021: 'Here are some points I think we can all agree on in this place. Secure and quality housing is important for everyone's wellbeing. We are in a housing affordability crisis.' And, finally: 'This crisis has been brewing for many years.'

So, if we can agree on these points, the question is: what did those opposite do when they were in power for nine years? The short answer: nothing. In fact, they actively worked to make the situation worse. The Abbott government abolished the National Housing Supply Council. The council, established in 2008 under the Rudd Labor government, was there to monitor housing demand, supply and affordability in Australia. It gave us a better understanding of the problem. That council and those insights—now gone. Those opposite also failed to convene a meeting of the state and territory ministers in five years. We know how important it is that states, territories and the Commonwealth work together to address housing affordability. But those opposite could not get on board.

In Australia we have major iconic infrastructure: the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Opera House, the Snowy Hydro scheme. We are a country obsessed with major infrastructure projects. Well, I want this to be the next major infrastructure project: social and affordable housing. The Albanese Labor government has been unashamedly ambitious with our housing policy. Our housing policy sees social and affordable housing as a key plank to solving the housing affordability crisis. That's the difference when you have a government that recognises housing equity as being important. It's good for those who need to access social housing—for women and children fleeing domestic violence; for older women, who are increasingly facing homelessness; for our veterans; for First Nations families; for those with disabilities.

We have established the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. The returns on the fund will build 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the fund's first five years, including 4,000 homes for women and children impacted by domestic violence, or older women at risk of homelessness. In an historic deal, we are working with states, territories and the private sector to build more homes. We have set an ambitious target of one million homes by the end of decade. This is big, nation-building stuff that will transform the lives of so many.

In September last year, the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Julie Collins, came to Burwood in my electorate to meet with community housing providers, local council and organisations assisting the homeless. I want to thank the organisations for participating in that roundtable: Burwood Community Welfare Services, St Paul's Parish, St Vincent de Paul Society, Bridge Housing, Women's and Girls' Emergency Centre, Eurella and Burwood Council. Many of the participants said it was the first time they had an opportunity to speak about the challenges with housing affordability and homelessness with a federal minister. I'm grateful to the minister for taking the time to meet with the community. This is a government that cares. It is one that is listening and acting to address the housing affordability crisis.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my home town of Charters Towers, it once took my wife 15 minutes and cost her $14 to do a subdivision. You could buy a piece of land in Charters Towers for $7,000. We were in a town of 16,000 people and were under the mining act. The only process was to walk in to the clerk of the court and ask, and for him to say: 'Yes, I agree to the subdivision,' or, 'No, I don't,' and that was the end of it. The net result of this was that you could buy a piece of land in Charters Towers for $7,000. Then the incoming Labor government said: 'We can't have this sort of irresponsibility!' So, in 1992, two years after the much-maligned Bjelke-Petersen government fell—was wiped out—the gruesome regime of processing was imposed upon us.

It was referred to, I might add, by no less than the Treasurer of the Parliament of Australia in his budget speech, where he said: 'Affordability is the major issue confronting this nation. Housing is the major element that is occasioning this problem, and the problem is caused by regulatory impositions,' and I and my honourable colleague from Tasmania were both sitting here saying, 'Hear, hear!' and we said that continuously throughout his speech, which was pretty rare for either of us. Then he reached his penultimate comment, saying that he was going to deal with this problem by putting an authority in, and we both burst out laughing. Our honourable colleague from the Adelaide area asked, 'Why are you laughing?' and we said: 'Because you've just put another tier in! You've got five tiers and processes you've got to go through now. Well, there's just been another process put in there!'

It is my land! There was the Magna Carta. No less a person than Archbishop Langton, under William, his colleague, the Regent, who said: 'It is your land; the government has no right to interfere.' So, if I want to cut my land up into tiny little parcels, that's my business. It's nothing to do with the government.

The government has every right to say: 'Well, you can't get any services to it,' but that isn't going to upset people a lot, because most of the people in North Queensland have a big tank and can supply their own water, and they can put solar panels on their roof and put batteries in, and say: 'Too bad! We don't need your electricity anymore. We don't need your water anymore.' And of course any enlightened regime would allow for septic tanks in backyards. Everyone in Cloncurry—and everyone in every town in North Queensland—had those, up until about 50 years ago, and I can't ever remember a complaint along those lines.

So the answer is there. The answer is simple. It is to give back to the people the powers that you have taken off them. Those powers were given to us in no less a document than the Magna Carta itself, in the homeland of it. And if there is a reason why the Anglos and the Europeans have skipped 100 years ahead of the rest of the world—they're not ahead now, but, for well over 200 years, they were ahead of the rest of the world—it was because they had a concept called property: privately owned, freehold property.

I would refer everybody in this House to the works of Hernando de Soto, the World Bank economist, who should have got the Nobel Prize but didn't. He said, 'Why are Egypt, the Philippines and Peru the three poorest countries on earth?' This is not a bloke to be taken lightly. His cousin heads up Rio, the second-biggest mining company on earth and amongst the top 20 biggest companies on earth. He himself is a senior economist with the World Bank. We don't exactly laugh at people like this. He said that it was because of the simple fact that you can't get a freehold title in any of those countries. It will take you 6½ years and 237 processes, many of which will require a lawyer, so effectively you can't get a freehold title.

I am very familiar with this concept because, when I went out and asked my blackfella mates, my brother cousins, what they wanted—3½ million acres of 30-inch rainfall land, not much of that in Australia—surprise, surprise, they wanted freehold title, inalienable freehold title, the same as everyone else on earth. And, 33 years since that legislation was abolished by the ALP government—I repeat: by the ALP government—there has not been a scintilla of effort to restore their rights to a freehold title. The net result of that is that the death rate has nearly trebled in all of those communities, because they took away market gardens as well. Not only did the socialists take away your source of fruit and vegetables, but also they took away your right to be able to put a fruit and vegetable farm in.

I want to talk about the Liberals now. It's very hard not to look at that terrible, evil word that we use to describe the annihilation of people on earth. We've had many examples of that: Adolf Hitler, the Turks against the Armenians, the British against the South Africans. But, in the Torres Strait, the Liberal government banned fruit and vegetable gardens. Well, I just don't know what word you'd used to describe it if you don't use that ugly word. How would you describe it? Those people have no way of getting fresh fruit and vegetables from Cairns up to every island—there are 28 islands in the Torres Strait—on a fortnightly basis. Since our fruit and vegetables in the Far North go to Brisbane and back again, and take another two weeks to get to the islands, there are no fresh fruit and vegetables. But that didn't worry them because they all had their own fruit and vegetable gardens in the backyard. I had 300 meals up there, and I can't remember ever touching a skerrick of food from the mainland or from anywhere else. It was all locally grown food. You took that right away from them. And you took their right to commercial dinghy fishing away from them. Maybe there's some other name that's not as bad as 'genocide', and I'd like you to suggest that I use it, because I don't want to use the word 'genocide', and yet I can't think of any other word to describe what was done there. It was exactly the same as what the British did in the concentration camps to the women and children in South Africa: 'Oh, we'll just deprive them of food. Don't do anything else. Just deprive them of food and medical treatment. She'll be right. They'll be gone.'

In North Queensland, in Charters Towers, we were doing a block of land for $7,000. It's an hour's drive from Townsville. I dare say, if you live in Sydney, you won't get anywhere in an hour, so you might as well live in Charters Towers. Townsville is a city, effectively, of 300,000 people—as big as Canberra. There are all mod cons there. Everything you want is there. It's an hour away. And we can provide land for $7,000. That was what we were doing until, as the Treasurer rightly pointed out, the government regime of requirements was imposed upon those people.

If you say there were some problems in that administration, I was a member of parliament there for 20 years and I never got a single complaint. We were selling land for $7,000 a block. Our right to do that was taken away from us so we could get in line with the rest of Australia, and the price of land in Charters Towers went from $7,000 to $142,000. Congratulations, Mr ALP Government of Queensland! What a fantastic success story. Your add-ons, making all your consultants in Brisbane super rich, which had never been needed in the 200-year history of the town and had never been called for, were imposed on them by you. They shot the price up from $7,000 to $142,000. I'm not one for exaggeration, I hope. The market has settled back down to about $45,000 a block, which is where it sits today. It should be $7,000 a block. Why isn't it?

A teacher rang up yesterday. He is sleeping on a verandah. They gave him an umbrella. So he sleeps on a verandah with an umbrella in one of the coldest parts of Australia, the Atherton Tableland, and he pays $300 a week for the privilege of sitting on a verandah with an umbrella. This is in a land where from Atherton across to the Indian Ocean there's nobody living. You could drop a line of atomic bombs from Atherton all the way across to Robe River, if you like, or wherever you want to point out on the west coast of Western Australia, and you wouldn't kill anyone, because there's no-one living there. So why are we paying this extraordinary price? The biggest land developer in North Queensland, Sir Robert Norman, said: 'Mate, I'm out of it. I haven't got enough years in my life to do the next subdivision.' So where we desperately need housing we can't get it. There is a second, small, element. We need high-speed, dual-lane, spoke roads and the speed raised to 125 kilometres an hour.

Outside of Cairns is Mission Beach. For two years in a row it has been voted one of the four most beautiful places on Earth. It has crystal clear waterfalls, no crocodiles, beaches 100 metres wide, coral at low tide, jungle right down to the beach. This truly is paradise. Why aren't there people living there? Go back to the restrictions placed on subdivisions by the government. That's why people aren't living there. Unless, somewhere, we can find an Alexander the Great to cut the Gordian knot, this situation in Australia will continue.

My daughter had a cubicle. I measured it. It was roughly the size of our toilet room in our home, and she was paying $300 a week for it. There's a bloke paying $300 a week for a verandah space with an umbrella in a country that's empty, in a country where, if you move more than a hundred kilometres from the coast, there is virtually no-one living. There are 1.2 million people living on a continent the size of Brazil or the United States. It is bigger than Europe and almost as big as China. It is bigger than India. There are only 1.2 million people living there, and yet you're charging people. You will not let them buy a piece of land under $140,000 anywhere in this country, and it's your fault.

Don't tell me you're going to have an authority. Walk into this place and pass laws saying that if it's my piece of land I can cut it into whatever I bloody well like, because it's my land, and Archbishop Langton and William, the regent of England, put that on paper and made it law that it's my land.

The great jurist Coke—as you pronounce his name—in 1676, I think it was, said 'An Englishman's home is his castle'. His house, ever so humble, may the wind blow through it, the winds flap in the breeze, the door open and shut in a gust, be it ever so humble. Even the King of England himself shall not set foot upon the portals without the permission of the law—meaning an Englishman's home is his castle.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese Labor government's comprehensive housing legislation package is so important. The reason is because safe, secure and affordable housing is central to the dignity of every person in this country. We all know how Australians are struggling across the nation when it comes to housing. In my electorate of Richmond, people are struggling every day. We have a rental crisis. We have a housing affordability crisis—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do something about it.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are doing something about it. We have a homelessness crisis and it is getting worse all the time. People are struggling with rising rents—they are struggling to even find a rental—and struggling with rising interest rates. Young people are struggling to buy their first home, and so many are struggling with homelessness. I see that struggle every day, particularly frontline workers telling me they cannot access housing.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now is not the time to make that point of order.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People in my electorate are struggling every day with the housing, homelessness and the rental affordability crisis. Following our devastating floods almost a year ago, there is still so much damage and so much destruction in our community. Almost a year on, people are living in their cars, unable to find accommodation anywhere. This is why this legislation is so vitally important. I am incredibly proud to be part of a government that is acting on that because it is a crisis and it needs to be addressed. That is why we are introducing these three bills before the House today, to implement our entire package.

These bills are a comprehensive suite of measures to build more social and affordable housing. It is one of the most significant investments in an entire generation to look at fixing this massive problem we have right across the country. At the centre of all of this is the Housing Australia Future Fund. It is one aspect of our commitment to improving housing supply and affordability. Central to that is increasing the supply of social and affordable housing and investing more in acute housing needs. In the first five years of operation, the fund will help build 30,000 social and affordable houses. Twenty thousand of these homes will be specifically for social housing, and 4,000 will be allocated for women and children fleeing domestic violence and for older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness. Also, the additional 10,000 homes will be for affordable housing—so vitally important—accessible to our frontline workers such as police, teachers, cleaners, all those people who worked so hard during the pandemic. Our frontline workers need to access housing.

As the Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, I cannot begin to describe how important it is to have these 4,000 homes for women and children fleeing domestic violence. This is incredibly urgent and indeed lifesaving. We know that domestic and family violence is one of the main reasons that women and children have to leave their homes. Between 2020 and 2021, 42 per cent of all clients who presented to a specialist homelessness service reported they were escaping family and domestic violence. This makes domestic and family violence the most common reason given for homelessness. That is why we need those 4,000 homes, to provide that long-term housing. As I said, we need those affordable homes for our frontline workers as well.

This is such an important, incredibly urgent, absolutely urgent, agenda that we have to have in place. It is for those reasons that I am absolutely outraged that so many across from us are opposing this bill. It is in fact shameful, very shameful that we see Liberal and National party opposing it, particularly the National Party because, for the regions, it is another example of how destructive the National Party is. I've said many times in this place that National Party choices hurt. Well, this really hurts. In my region, after the devastation of the floods, you cannot find affordable housing, you cannot find a rental and people are homeless and living in their cars—and what does the National Party come in here and do? They vote against it. That's exactly what they're going to do; they've said they'll be voting against it, voting against supporting people in our community who are desperate to access decent housing. It is reprehensible and absolutely shameful.

People in the community know. They have been saying it: 'How can the National Party walk away from the regions, from rural Australia?' That's exactly what they are doing in opposing this bill. They were in government for over a decade and did nothing in terms of addressing any of these issues. They created the crisis. And now they're shamefully opposing our action, our commitment, to fix it. I challenge any of those National Party members to come to my region and explain why they're doing it, explain to people why they're not assisting them finding a house, explain why they're not assisting people who are homeless and sleeping in their cars. You come and look them in the eye and tell them why you will not support them. It is absolutely shameful.

We are also seeing posturing from the Greens, who are saying they're opposing it. Supposedly housing is a priority for them, yet they're threatening to oppose it. That is just outrageous! It's just like the CPRS all over again. They need to rethink this and need to support what we are doing to ensure that people can find affordable and accessible housing.

This is desperate, this is urgent and I encourage all members to rethink this and support our bills. People need to find decent housing. It is an absolute human right to ensure they have dignity and access to housing. I very proudly commend all these bills to the House.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and the associated bills. I'm lucky enough, in Melbourne, to have the electorate that has the highest number of public housing residents, from the last time we looked at the statistics. In that electorate, one of the things we deal with day after day, in our office, is people who can't get into public housing, who have been on the waiting list for years and who are told, even though they're homeless, even though they're couch surfing, even though they might be women just about to give birth, there is no place for them in public housing. When you look at the rental market, you find there is zero chance of renting near your family or your friends or where you work or study because rents in the private market have grown seven times faster than wages. People are in crisis.

When you're faced with this housing crisis, where you can't get into public housing because governments haven't built public housing and where you can't get into the private market because rents are going through the roof, it takes a particular kind of genius to come up with a policy that will see the waiting list longer at the end than it is now. We've got a shortage at the moment of 640,000 social and affordable homes in this country—a shortage that is set to grow by 75,000 in five years—and a proposal that says we're supposedly going to finance the construction of 30,000 over five years, which means the shortage of affordable and social housing will continue to grow under this policy. This policy is one that bakes in the problem getting worse.

It's not even a promise to spend money on housing. This is a gamble of $10 billion of public money being put into the stock market in the hope that some of that might find its way back into building housing. It's not a $10 billion investment in housing; it's a $10 billion gamble on the stock market with a spending cap on housing. We've heard from the government that somehow this is going to result in $500 million a year. What people need to know is what the government is doing is taking public money, putting it over for a gamble on the stock market and hoping that that generates some money to be spent on public housing. Last year, if this proposal had gone ahead, it would have actually lost money; the investment in the future fund would have actually lost money. There is no requirement in this legislation that a dollar be spent per year on social and affordable housing. If money is made after gambling on the stock market, then it may come in. Last year there were zero dollars. It was negative; it made a loss. Separately, in a time of crisis they've put a cap on how much they're going to spend. Even if the fund makes a greater return, they've limited how much they're going to spend. And it's not even indexed. In other words, even if more money is made available, they've locked in a steady decline, a steady cut, on how much will be spent on social and affordable housing.

Spending on social and affordable housing and building new public housing in this country shouldn't be dependent on the whims of the stock market. Imagine if we did that with schools and hospitals. Imagine if the government said: 'I'm sorry. We can't find funds to build new public schools this year because the stock market made a loss.' There would be an outcry, and rightly so. Spending on public, social and affordable housing should be treated the same way as spending on public schools and on public health. We need a mind shift in this country where the government says, 'Whether you find a roof over your head isn't dependent on whether the stock market has made money this year; it is a basic right.' The government shouldn't come to the parliament in a time of crisis and say, 'We want a cap on how much we're going to spend on social and affordable housing.'

There is a massive problem here, including for renters, but there's nothing in here for renters in the private market, who are seeing rents grow by seven times as much as wages. There's nothing in here. The government has failed to understand that a shift has gone on in Australian society. Now more people are renting and they are finding it impossible to get a place to rent near where they work or study. There's nothing in here to address out-of-control spiralling rents. We need to start taking seriously the position that renters find themselves in. Renters need to stop being treated like second-class citizens and ignored by governments. It is time for more rights for renters, but there's nothing in this package for renters.

Freezing rent increases and doubling Commonwealth rent assistance would go a huge way to relieving the stress that renters find themselves in. The government has brought forward a bill that says that at the end of the bill, if the bill is implemented, the problem will be worse and the gap will be bigger than it is now. It ignores renters. The government has nothing for renters who find themselves in crisis right now. What does the government have for renters who are watching spiralling rents and can't find a secure roof over their head? Zero; there is zero in these bills for renters right now.

The opposition have said no to these bills, but we're saying to the government, 'Do better.' We're saying to the government, 'Put some real money into housing and guarantee that it is going to flow so that we start to make the problem better, not worse, as these bills are proposing to do.' We're saying to the government: 'Do better for renters. Double Commonwealth rent assistance. Work to freeze rents across the country for the next two years, like happened in some places during the pandemic.' During the pandemic, governments, including in Victoria, understood that we were in a crisis. There is now a rental crisis that people are facing. The government needs to step in and stop rents spiralling out of control.

With over 20 per cent of First Nations people living in overcrowded homes, a $1 billion capital investment will help address the shocking inequality in housing outcomes in this country. That could be part of what the government is putting forward. Ultimately, the Greens are fighting on behalf of the millions of people that this bill leaves behind. Whether they're homeless, whether they're stuck on public or social housing waiting lists or whether they're struggling to pay the rent, we will fight to make sure that Labor does not forget them, because at the moment they are not helped by this bill.

So the opposition will say no and the Greens will say: 'Do better. Have something in this bill that addresses the real crisis that renters find themselves in. Let's look at First Nations housing. Let's make sure we spend some real money, not just have a gamble on the stock market and then cap how much is going to be spent and, in some years, spend nothing at all.' These are real proposals that will help fix the problem, not see the problem get worse. That is the fundamental problem with the approach the government is taking: if this bill is passed as it is, the problem will get worse than it is now. The problem will be worse than it is now at the end of the next few years.

People are looking to members of this parliament to work together to fix the massive rental crisis that people are in, not to pass a policy that bakes in the problem getting worse. We'll continue to work with the government over the coming weeks to make this better, because people need it to be better. Renters need it to be better, First Nations communities need it to be better—everyone who is struggling to afford to put a roof over their head needs this government to do better.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've heard some twisted logic in this place before, but the member for Melbourne has tied himself in knots in his remarks. It beggars belief that the Greens would come into this place and say that we need more housing and do it by threatening to stop the construction of 20,000 social housing homes. It beggars belief that the Greens say the answer to the need for more housing is to deny the construction of 4,000 domestic violence places around our country—it beggars belief!

I've heard threats from all sides of politics in the past, but there is no way that the Greens are going to vote against this bill. If they do, they will have to explain that to women and children who are constantly missing out, who are being turned away from shelters. They will have to explain to women who are trying to leave situations of unimaginable danger and violence in their own homes that the Greens didn't think it was up to their lofty standards to support the construction of 4,000 extra dwellings around the country. Spare me! We are, I would hope, united in wanting to see safety for Australian women and children, wherever they are around this country. But, in coming here and lecturing us that the answer is not to support the construction of 4,000 domestic violence homes and 20,000 social housing homes, the Greens are using some of the most twisted and ridiculous logic I have ever heard.

We know that those opposite have an ideological bent against federal involvement in the construction of social housing. We know that because over the last decade that those opposite were in power they time and time again refused to support the construction of social housing. Throughout history, when the Labor Party has been in government at a federal level the federal government has funded the construction of social housing. Curtin and Chifley did it post World War II. Whitlam made one of the largest investments in social housing. The Hawke and Keating governments invested in social housing. The Rudd and Gillard governments—under the then Minister for Housing, now Minister for the Environment, the member for Sydney—made massive investments in social housing.

It shouldn't matter what political colour the government of Australia is. All governments should be investing in the provision of social housing, and I'm proud that the bill before the House, the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, is the single largest contribution to social housing a federal government has made in well over a decade. It will construct 20,000 homes, 4,000 of which will be allocated to women and children leaving domestic violence situations and to women on low incomes. It will also construct 10,000 affordable homes.

It is not the only work going on around the country. We'll also be working with states and territories and superannuation funds in the Housing Accord that the Treasurer announced in the budget. It comes as part of a big suite of reforms that we are doing to get the federal government back to the table around the provision of housing. It's not the only thing, but it is a crucial step forward. We know that those opposite have an ideological bent against support for and construction of social housing by federal governments. It is nothing but ideology. But we on this side of the House understand the importance of a safe and secure roof over one's head, and every single Australian deserves a safe and secure roof.

So I say to this House that this is a big step forward. This is a good bill, and I congratulate the Minister for Housing and also the Minister for Education, who was the shadow minister for housing and helped design this policy. This policy will help thousands of Australians. This policy that we are debating will mean that literally thousands of women and children are not turned away from domestic violence shelters. This policy means that nurses and other frontline workers, like police and cleaners, will have an affordable home to live in. This policy will get the federal government back into the provision of housing in Australia.

If those opposite don't want to be on this side of history, that's a matter for them, and it has always been their ideological bent. But to the Greens: for goodness sake, you cannot call yourselves serious about supporting those in social housing by denying them 20,000 social homes. You cannot call yourselves serious about protecting women and children by denying 4,000 women and children—on a single night—a safe place to go. That is not how you progress things.

I hope that all members of this place support this bill and that we take a giant leap forward in the provision of social housing and the provision of safe and secure housing for Australians, who deserve it.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this housing legislation with a mix of support and concern. Several months in, we have one of those rare opportunities to debate legislation which the Labor Party actually prepared themselves, under the guise of their own policies. It is a rare situation because it isn't a carbon copy of coalition policy. And we can tell that it's not coalition policy, because, while those opposite speak about unlocking opportunities for young people and supporting those in need of housing support, these bills do not deliver that. That is the mark of a Labor government: pledges, platitudes and promises, and then dithering, delays and nondeliveries. In fact, I've been on my feet in this place and said, 'Labor, what do they do? They promise you the world. And what do they give you? They give you an atlas.'

In a moment I'll address each of the bills individually, but I want to show the contrast between the coalition's approach to housing and that of this government. During our last three years in government, the coalition's housing policies supported more than 300,000 Australians in the purchase of a home. Let me say that again. In the last term of a coalition government, more than 300,000 Australians were assisted in the purchase of a home.

We on this side of the House believe in the Menzies tradition of the great Australian dream of trying to enable as many Australians as humanly possible to afford to buy their own home, and we had some terrific policies, like the Home Guarantee Scheme. And I should point out that the former Assistant Treasurer and now shadow housing minister did an absolutely sterling job when he was the minister in those portfolios. The Home Guarantee Scheme supported eligible home buyers to purchase a new or existing home with a deposit as low as five per cent. As most of us would know, you ordinarily need a loan-to-value ratio of 80 to 20. So you need a 20 per cent deposit. When we, the coalition, were in government, our policy enabled people to buy their own home through the federal government effectively guaranteeing the performance of that 15 per cent. It enabled people to get in with as little as a five per cent deposit. Most young people will tell you that their biggest impediment to buying a home is saving a sufficient deposit. The coalition government's policy in our home guarantee program answered that problem. Over 10,400 Queenslanders benefited from this scheme, and 52 per cent were women and 20 per cent were essential workers, such as teachers and nurses.

We all know that housing is a huge problem in this country. For a country that is so incredibly huge, one almost finds it incredible that housing could be such a problem. But supply is one of the biggest problems that we have, and so is red tape. Many of those supply and red-tape issues are driven by state planning instruments and local governments. But, as I said, 10,400 Queenslanders benefited from this home guarantee program. Fifty-two per cent were women and 20 per cent were essential workers.

The Family Home Guarantee went even better. The Family Home Guarantee empowered single-parent families with children to buy their first home or to re-enter the housing market with a deposit as low as two per cent. This was a scheme which delivered real outcomes for the long-term financial security and housing security of single-parent families. Just like many young people would say their biggest impediment was their inability to raise a deposit of 20 per cent, single parents, who often struggle financially to make ends meet, find it very, very, difficult to save up that deposit. With the Family Home Guarantee, the coalition government provided meaningful support to people who were in difficult positions. Eighty-five per cent of the recipients of the Family Home Guarantee were single mums.

We didn't just talk the talk on delivering for Australians; we delivered. That is what good governments do. Through the First Home Super Saver Scheme, we helped 27,600 first home buyers accelerate their deposits through super, recognising that their super is their money. Everybody would remember the HomeBuilder program. I can remember being on the other side in this place when the then minister for housing introduced the necessary legislation to kick off the HomeBuilder program. The now Treasurer, who was the then the shadow Treasurer, stood here and said, 'This program will never work.' The now Treasurer lambasted the HomeBuilder program and said it would never work.

Coming from the building industry, I had building industry colleagues and friends coming to me and pleading with me in about March or April 2020 that we needed to do something to spur the construction industry along because they were facing an economic cliff in around August of 2020. Their contracts were drying up. To his credit, the now shadow Assistant Treasurer, in conjunction with industry bodies, came up with the HomeBuilder program. We were able to support 30,000 Queenslanders into building their homes under this package—homes in new estates like Baringa, Nirimba, Palmview and Bokrina in the electorate of Fisher—through HomeBuilder alone. This was terrific, not just providing homes for people but providing unbelievably successful economic stimulus during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a $120 billion boost to the economy, supporting nearly 375,000 full-time jobs. The now Treasurer, who is responsible for guiding this country through difficult economic times, stood up here in the chamber and said it would never work.

Even in opposition today, we are pushing for housing reform. We have announced our super home buyer scheme which will allow first home buyers to invest up to 40 per cent of their superannuation, up to a maximum of $50,000, to help with the purchase of their first home. That is what a coalition government does. Those opposite just don't get it, do they? They don't get that it's people's own money. The current government think they know better.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Terrible policy!

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection, because they think that superannuation is the plaything of the Labor Party, and it's not; it's people's hard-earned money. For great programs like this that enable people to get out of the rent race and buy their own first home, this is a good policy. This is what a coalition government will do. It's what we have done. We back aspirational Australians. We back Australians who want to ensure that their families have a better quality of life. This policy will help build the economy. It makes the Australian dream a reality for the many, not the privileged few.

After nine years of good government, record investment, reform and real outcomes for everyday Australians, the housing sector came through the challenges of COVID-19 and a global financial crisis, yet Labor appears intent on dismantling our good work. Let's take a look at the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023. This is a bill which will require $10 billion of Commonwealth government borrowing. It will cost the Commonwealth as much as $400 million a year in interest servicing costs—and that's at today's rate, and we all know what's happening with rates. That's $400 million per year on interest. Imagine where that money could be better spent.

Now is not the time to plunge our country into unnecessary debt to fund a social policy experiment. Increased borrowing at this rate will only increase inflationary pressures on mums and dads right now. The more this government spends, the more inflationary pressures it places upon the economy. That will see more interest rate rises. Some 800,000 fixed-rate mortgages are about to become variable-rate mortgages. When those fixed-rate loans expire, the average Australian will be paying $16,000 more in mortgage payments. That is a circumstance many Australians are in now. The cost of living is incredibly difficult on family budgets; putting aside mortgage repayments, there are increases in transport costs, energy costs and food costs. Everybody is feeling it. But how many average Australian families are going to be able to afford—in many cases overnight—to pay an additional $16,000 a year in interest payments? Labor is already out of its depth in attempting to address the cost-of-living crisis facing Australians and their businesses, and this bill will only make it worse.

There is a lack of detail in this bill. Once again, this government is attempting to implement a significant reform without providing Australians with the information that they need and deserve. This has become an ongoing trend. Crucial questions that go to the heart of the Australian economy and the Australian ethos cannot be left unanswered. There's no investment mandate that has been released by this government, meaning that scrutiny and information about the fund's capability are restricted. This means that the legislation is essentially just a shell. It is empty. It is vacuous, like this government's entire housing policy agenda. The bill promises to address social housing, affordable housing and acute housing, but it absolutely fails to define what those three terms mean. Despite the bill providing a five-year review time frame and limits of annual drawdowns, there are no performance criteria and no details about the review mechanism. Once again, we're being asked to vote on a bill without detail. It is Labor creating policy on the run. Once again they are building the aircraft as it's running down the runway.

On these two issues alone, the Australian people would expect the coalition to vote against this bill. But, when you put it into the context of the government's housing agenda, the false promises and failures would cast doubt even in the minds of those who lent Labor their vote at the last election. After nine months in office, I ask the government: Where are the 30,000 new social and affordable homes that you promised? Where is your Help to Buy program that you said would commence on 1 January 2023? What are you doing to address supply chain shortages for building materials? How are you supporting the interstate and international migration of skilled workforces for construction? What are you doing about increasing rents, which have grown by 10.2 per cent, setting a new record? (Time expired)

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese government understands safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of Australians. It's something I understand personally, as do the Minister for Housing and the Prime Minister. The three of us are all housos. We grew up in housing commission properties, and we're proud of it. Public housing gave my family more than just a roof over our heads. It gave us a safe place to call home. It supported a young migrant family as we worked hard to build a life in Australia. It gave us the security to allow my sister and me to pursue education and give back to our country, which gave us so much. That is what safe and avoidable housing means. It means dignity. It means opportunity. Too many Australians are being hit by rising rents and mortgage payments; too many Australians are struggling to buy a home; and, sadly, too many Australian are facing or experiencing homelessness. That's why we have an ambitious housing reform agenda: to ensure more Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home.

This housing package is a comprehensive suite of measures to build more social and affordable houses. It is one of the most significant Australian government investments in housing in a generation. The legislation—the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills—implements the government's commitments to establish a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to provide a stream of funding to ensure there is a pipeline of new social and affordable housing for Australians in need. It's 30,000 new homes, $200 million for acute housing needs in Indigenous communities; $30 million for veterans who are experiencing homelessness; and a $575 million injection into the National Housing Infrastructure Facility for immediate use for social and affordable housing. It's also about transforming the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation into Housing Australia, as the national home for key housing programs, to expand its activities. It's also about establishing the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent advice to government on ways to increase housing supply and affordability.

All these commitments are part of the government's broader housing reform agenda, which includes: the landmark National Housing Accord—a shared ambition to build one million well-located homes over five years from 2024; $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; widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, with $575 million immediately available to invest in social and affordable housing; developing the national housing and homelessness plan to set short, medium and long-term goals to improve housing outcomes across Australia; implementing the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which has already helped more than 1,600 Australians into home ownership; and the Help to Buy program, which will reduce the cost of buying a home and help people into a home sooner.

The government has expanded all of these efforts in a focus to address the housing crisis and ease the cost of living. But what about those on the other side who we have heard from? It was not enough for the previous coalition government to discontinue the National Rental Affordability Scheme. It was not enough of the previous coalition government to abolish the National Housing Supply Council. They claimed that housing was a state issue yet they couldn't bring together state and territory housing ministers for the last five years. They couldn't even do that for five years. Now they are lining up to oppose this critical $10 billion investment in affordable housing. This is at a time when Australians are struggling with increasing rents, increasing mortgage payments and increasing house prices, at a time when we as a government are taking real action on these issues after nine long years of wasted time under their zero leadership—zero.

It is not just the Libs. I hear that the unholy alliance between the Greens political party and the Liberals might be back. I hope not. It seems that if the Greens want to make an enemy of the good, which is part of their MO, they might seek to sink the $10 billion investment in affordable housing. That is not coming into this place to build, to be constructive; it is coming into this place to wreck. I'm shocked they might be happy to join the coalition in opposing this bill. The simple truth for the Greens party is that they talk big on housing, but the rubber hits the road here when they vote on the reality of impacting millions of Australian and their access to housing. We will negotiate with them as we always do. We will even, in good faith, negotiate with the opposition if they are willing to talk about amendments. I urge the Greens not to join up with the coalition to kill this bill.

Just two months ago the member for Melbourne, the Leader of the Greens—he is not here—sent a message to supporters asking them to think about the homeless and those struggling to pay the rent over Christmas. Did he talk about the Greens Party's support for the government's public housing investment? No. He told people that if they really care about the homeless, they should donate to the Greens political party.

The Albanese government won't use housing stress to shake down people for money. We won't promise false hope with failed policies, and we won't stand here and play political games like those on the other side and some of those on the crossbench who may oppose this bill. I hope they don't. I hope the minor parties, the Greens and crossbenchers, understand the importance of this. I hold out that hope, even though I know that there are many, many local councillors from the Greens, for example, who have opposed public and affordable housing in their local council decisions. I know this is the case in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. Where public and social and affordable housing is desperately needed, there has been opposition by Greens councillors. I hope that is not replicated here in the parliament of Australia.

I hope the Greens don't team up with the coalition to threaten billions of dollars of critical investment in public housing. Because if they decide to make perfect the enemy of good and they don't get what they want on amendments in good faith negotiation, for example, and they team up with those on the other side and oppose this bill, they will go down in ignominy. They will be going against millions of people that this bill will help, millions of Australians. These are people fleeing domestic violence. These are people who fought for our country and served. These are First Nations Australians who live in remote areas. These are people who need a home, so I ask the opposition to reconsider their position. I ask the Greens political party to work with us and the crossbenchers to invest and implement these critical reforms that are so needed for so many Australians. What are we here for if not to serve them in that capacity, in good faith? Work with us to provide the national leadership to address housing affordability across Australia.

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was some interesting reading for members of this House and the Senate over summer. A lot of that was courtesy of the Treasurer, and I'd like to come back to this because it matters in this debate. We're here debating the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. But all of these bills contribute to the larger, bigger picture and the focus of this government, and it's important to analyse and look at the focus of this government and the consequences of that.

Many have spoken about homeownership as a core value for the Liberal Party, and it is, I submit, a core value for this nation. There's a reason that one of the most popular and well loved movies in Australia is The Castlebecause our home is our castle, and it is a place to raise a family and it is a place to have security and to have a good life.

Indeed, for Robert Menzies, who my seat is named after, that was his No. 1 ambition for this nation—that every family has a home to call their own. It his seminal speech 'The forgotten people', Menzies emphatically laid out the manifold centrality of this. He said:

The home is the foundation of sanity and sobriety; it is the indispensable condition of continuity; its health determines the health of society as a whole.

And he said a home is your castle, so he was before his time, making sure that this was something that would go down in Australian history.

Many have spoken about the difficulty for young people to get into a home, and this bill does nothing to address that. It should be not a partisan issue but something that's of concern to every party because the path to homeownership has become harder. Again, this bill does nothing to help that.

Homeowners, or households, are a group that are paying a larger share of their income in interest than they did in the 1980s, despite the fall in rates. We hear the horror stories from our parents about what the 1990s were like, and I remember those stories. I remember seeing those bills. Indeed, my father still has a clip of what the interest rates were in the 1990s.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should've seen it in the 1970s!

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not so old as to have seen it in the 1970s, to take the interjection! But when you look at those bills in the 1990s—that is etched into the psyche of people who can remember that. But homeowners now have larger debts, and it's important to assess them relative to both their income and their assets. As rates go up, they are still not near those levels of the 1980s and 1990s. But house prices, relative to income, are twice what they were a generation ago, and access to finance is harder—and it's getting harder all the time because of the decisions that are being made in this place and by this government. So we can accept as a statement of fact that the path to owning your own home is more difficult now than it ever has been. Young people are getting squeezed in many different ways. Interest rates are high and getting higher. House prices are dropping off, but they're still extraordinarily high.

When we look at the average family or the average house—and I'd like to single out millennials. I think I just skip the millennial generation; I'm of that long-forgotten generation, generation X. Millennials are our largest generation. If you wanted to buy, say, a $650,000 apartment in Melbourne—it's not a house. It's hard to get a house for that money. The mean price for a house is closer to a million dollars in many suburbs of Melbourne, and it goes up the closer you get to where you work in the city. But let's say you're on a salary of $70,000 or $72,000, which is often what graduates are on—forgetting all the debts that you owe after going to university—and you're an office manager or you have an administrative job. For that $650,000 apartment, it would take you 15 years and seven months to save a 20 per cent deposit. It's no wonder that many people give up, no wonder that so many people, particularly within a certain radius of our capital cities, are saying that homeownership is beyond them. The journey to homeownership has become an ultramarathon, if not a never-ending one, because that timeframe keeps getting pushed out. Purchasing power has not kept up with exploding property prices. Saving for a deposit on the average home in Sydney, where the member for Bennelong is from, is even worse. It would take many, many more years to save for the average apartment or the average house in Sydney.

We need to do more for young people. This bill won't do that. In fact, it will have an adverse affect on that aspiration. We know from the IMF that off-budget spending of $45 billion will have a detrimental impact on the economy. We know that interest rates must move in tune with fiscal policy. The Reserve Bank is independent and it has a role. The Reserve Bank is in this house this week—before the Senate today and before the House Standing Committee on Economics, which I'm a member of, as is the member for Bennelong. There is an important role for that independence and accountability to this place, but we must never forget the important role played by the people on the government benches, the important role in fiscal policy. You cannot have one foot on the brake and one foot on the accelerator. For every extra $6 billion of off-budget spending there is potentially a quarter of a percentage point rise to the cash rate. What will $45 billion do? And this bill is a key part of that $45 billion.

We have to ask what are the priorities of the Labor Party in bringing this forward, and that means we have to ask what are the priorities of the Treasurer. Many in this chamber and in the media have spoken about the Treasurer's essay. There are some wonderful parts about what the Treasurer is actually interested in. I enjoyed reading his essay, and I commend him for putting pen to paper. It is important that we hear from the executive members in long-form essay, because we get to see what is important to them. It's an essay long on cliches that I haven't seen since my undergraduate days but short on economics and short on a vision for a better future for younger Australians, and for younger Australians buying their own home. The Treasurer seeks to criticise neoliberalism without defining it. It's a dog whistle to his own party. It's a dog whistle to serve his own aspirations for further promotion. He talks about the Washington consensus and pooh-poohs it, but he doesn't define it and doesn't say which part about it he is criticising. He doesn't say which parts were a source of wealth and dragged millions, if not billions, of people out of poverty in the world. He goes back to the energy shocks of the 1970s and gives us a history lesson. But he then says some really concerning things: 'If we could redesign markets for investments in social purposes.' We all want better social outcomes in this country, but when somebody says 'redesign markets', and that someone is the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, we should be concerned. When that someone also talks about making sure that the allocation of capital has a government intervention, we should be concerned, because that person is not talking about redesigning capitalism. That person is talking about criticising it.

I could go on with all the different parts of the essay. Many of them have been repeated, including noting that 'We'—being the Labor government—'will renew and revitalise the Productivity Commission and renovate the Reserve Bank of Australia.' I'm sure the Treasurer isn't talking about a lick of paint or doing up that building in Sydney, which I urge you to go and visit, if you can. No, he's talking about something more insidious, and it is quite disturbing. When the Treasurer says it's not just our economic institutions that need renewing and restructuring but the way our markets allocate and arrange capital as well, I get concerned.

When I finished the essay, I wondered what else the Treasurer had written. He wrote a PhD thesis; he has a doctorate. I'll save everyone the time of looking at it. The doctorate is called 'Brawler Statesman'. That's a perfect title not just for Paul Keating but for the culture of the Labor Party. We see the Labor Party come in here one day and speak in hushed tones about our veterans and in hushed tones about how there is a unity ticket on foreign policy and defence. That's the statesman in some of you, and I commend you for it. Then, on other days, the brawler is on. The brawler comes in and shoots invective about how this side doesn't care about veterans and doesn't care about defence and national security. That's what we saw yesterday. The heart of this Labor Party is a contradiction. You don't know what you're going to get from one day to the next. It is a bipolar party that one day is a statesman and one day is a brawler, and we don't know who will come in on a particular day.

Let's look at this thesis. Here are the titles of the chapters. Chapter 1 is 'Brawler statesman'. The subchapter is 'Revisiting prime ministerial power'. I'd like to take you to a part of that. In the 'Outlines, aims and arguments' section, the Treasurer said:

The aim of the dissertation, therefore, is to isolate the power relationships central to the governing task and to draw some conclusions about the levers of power available to Keating specifically and then, more broadly, to Australian prime ministers in general.

It's to study the levers of power.

Chapter 2 is 'Prime ministerial leadership'. Again the focus is on power and the power debate. Chapter 3 is 'Leading Labor', which talks about the factions. Chapter 4 is 'Controlling cabinet'. You'll notice that there isn't any reference here to actual economics, values or having a better nation. Then there's 'Governing from the centre'.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about a reference to housing?

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can see no reference to housing. In the chapter 'Throwing grenades' there is a section 'Us and them'. Again this is the brawler in the Labor Party—the fighting tories cliche you hear in the corridors of this place. 'I love fighting tories. I love fighting Liberals'—that's the brawler in the Labor Party. The Treasurer focused a whole chapter on throwing grenades. 'Throwing grenades'—what a great chapter title.

I thought that now we're up to chapter 7 we might actually get something of substance. It's called 'Painting the big picture'. There's 'The high grade drip', 'The rhetorical Prime Minister' and 'Striding the international stage'. Chapter 8 is 'Pressing the flesh', and then you're finished.

That's a whole insight into what the Treasurer is actually focused on. It's a focus on power—how power is obtained, how power is used and how it takes an individual from sitting as Treasurer to sitting as Prime Minister and leader in that seat. That is what the Treasurer is focused on. In all of the speeches about the people this bill will supposedly back there's a bit of statesman, but it's about being a brawler. If you were truly coming in here with your statesman hat on, you would recognise that these off-budget bills are hurting Australians. They are stopping Australians from actually getting into the housing market. This $10 billion bill will do nothing to get young Australian families into their own home.

I'd like to take it back to my seat. In my seat, mortgage repayments are 30 per cent of household income. Compare that to the nationwide average of 14.5 per cent. So in my seat there is enormous mortgage stress and enormous concern about what this government is doing to lever fiscal policy to reduce inflation and to reduce the pressure on them.

This bill sounds great and has great objectives, but it won't achieve those objectives, except one—that is, it will help the Treasurer's focus on his own objectives for power. It will hurt Australians by putting pressure on inflation and, therefore, interest rates. It's pushing more work from this place, from the ministerial wing, down to the Reserve Bank. Then they say, 'Oh, well, it's an independent Reserve Bank.' The Reserve Bank is independent, but it's getting more and more in its in-tray because of the work that's not being done by this frontbench. We oppose this bill because it does nothing to help struggling families throughout this nation.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I talk to people throughout my electorate of Bennelong, one of the most common things I hear is their concern about the cost of housing. Locals are worried about renting and about transitioning from rental homes to homeownership, and those who own their own homes are worried about where their kids will live. Locals are facing growing rents. They're priced out of the housing market due to high prices.

That is why it is so critical to have an ambitious and strong housing reform agenda. We know that the market is failing to provide affordable rental properties and affordable homes to buy. The Albanese Labor government knows that having a safe and affordable place to call home is central to the security and dignity of Australians, and that's why this bill, the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, and the associated bills are so important.

Before coming to this place I had the great pleasure of serving my community as a councillor for 10 years, five of which I was mayor. Those issues I outlined before were present back then as well. The lack of affordable housing not only in the city of Ryde, which forms part of Bennelong, but also right across metropolitan cities and across the country is at crisis point. It was then and it continues to be now. The housing market continues to fail households, especially those on very low, low and moderate incomes.

In 2011, 7,450 key worker households in Ryde were in need of affordable priced housing. It's estimated that by 2031 the Ryde LGA will need 10,700 affordable housing dwellings for key workers. In my time there we put together a clear vision for affordable housing. We did the work and we lodged the planning proposal to deliver these much-needed homes. More than three years after we submitted this important work, this planning proposal—the first of its kind in New South Wales— to the state government, the Liberals refused it. They even had the gall to say the planning proposal was ahead of its time. Well, when is the time? When is the time to deliver on affordable housing?

I'm not surprised the Liberals are opposing these bills today because they always oppose efforts to increase affordable housing. When former Premier Berejiklian, in New South Wales, became Premier she said affordable housing was 'the biggest issue'. Then, years later, they knocked back real and tangible efforts by the council I led to deliver that affordable housing. You hear in their speeches here today—I've been here for the last 20 minutes—that they all say they love affordable housing and they want to work to deliver it, but when the rubber hits the road, when the policy hits their desks, they vote against it. It's in their DNA to oppose affordable housing, so I'm not surprised they're here today coming up with all sorts of reasons to oppose it.

But I am surprised about the wild and outrageous criticisms from the Greens on this critical legislation. Again, we see the far right and the far left coming together to oppose a policy that Australians voted for. I say to the Greens, led by the member for Griffith—and to all his comrades who seem to be taking his lead—that the opportunities presented by these bills are too great to play politics with. These bills are a policy that was taken to the 2022 election—one that Australians voted for and that will establish the much-needed step of a housing future fund. It'll create a source of funds in perpetuity for social and affordable housing to be built. It has the potential to deliver 30,000 new social and affordable homes back into this community. Further, it will address the acute housing needs of our most vulnerable communities and provide $200 million for the improvement of housing in Indigenous communities, $100 million for housing options for women and children impacted by family and domestic violence, and a further $30 million for veterans.

If the Greens join with the Liberals and vote down these bills, they will be hurting those in our community who need them most. If the Greens join with the Liberals to vote down these bills, they will be stopping the federal government from taking a much-needed leadership role in the provision of affordable housing. I know from experience that one level of government cannot do this alone; you need all levels of government working together. This is the opportunity for the federal government to finally take a lead on the delivery of social and affordable housing. As a council we had the most ambitious affordable housing proposal in New South Wales, and the Liberals knocked it back.

We haven't had a federal government that cares about social and affordable housing for a long, long time. Everyone in this place needs to back this bill so that finally we can get that leadership started, because every level of government needs to be involved. There's nothing more important than a safe, affordable place to call home. To those in this place, particularly the Greens: don't put that at risk; stop the baseless and shallow attacks and work with the government to make housing in this country more affordable and more accessible.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

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

"notes that:

(1) Australia currently has a shortage of 640,000 social and affordable homes, and that shortage is projected to increase by 75,000 homes over the next five years, which means the government's plan to build 30,000 homes over five years will see the situation get worse;

(2) this bill does nothing to help the millions of renters struggling with skyrocketing rents and record low vacancy rates;

(3) this bill locks in a $500 million per year spending cap on housing, which will see a real term cut in spending every year; and

(4) if the government truly wanted to solve the housing crisis, they could:

(a) help renters by doubling Commonwealth Rent Assistance and putting a plan to freeze rent increases on the National Cabinet agenda;

(b) phase out negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts; and

(c) invest directly in building one million well-designed public homes, enough to not just clear the wait lists, but also provide affordable housing to the teachers, nurses, aged care workers, cleaners and others locked out of the housing market."

Australia is facing one of the worst housing crises in our history. There are 2.7 million people in rental stress. With interest rates rising, the RBA predicts that soon 1.5 million households won't be earning enough to cover their mortgage and pay for essentials. Homelessness is on the rise. We've heard stories of families living in cars and parents losing custody of their children because they can't find a home that they can afford to rent. But even these numbers and stories don't do enough to describe the depth and scale of the housing crisis.

Labor's plan is to invest $10 billion on the stock market via the housing fund and use the returns to invest in housing. Let's be very clear: this is not a $10 billion investment in housing; it's a $10 billion gamble on the stock market where the volatile returns are invested in housing. Indeed, if Labor had established this plan last year, the year the Future Fund lost 1.2 per cent, the housing fund would have actually lost $120 million. This is a plan that gambles with the lives of people who desperately need an affordable, secure roof over their head. This is a plan that gambles housing funding on the same market that broke the housing system in the first place. We would never accept subjecting funding for schools and hospitals to the success or failure of an investment in the stock market, so why is Labor forcing people in desperate need of public and social housing to rely on the chaotic stock market that last year lost 1.2 per cent for the Future Fund?

Even in the very best case scenario, where the fund earns a return, it's not at all clear that Labor's plan will reach their own abysmal targets. They now keep saying 'a potential 30,000 homes' or 'up to 30,000 homes'. That's probably because, with the cost of constructing a social home at around $300,000, $500 million a year for five years could directly fund via capital only 8,000 homes, not 30,000. Labor has still not detailed exactly how the $500 million per year will actually fund the construction of 30,000 homes. Parliament doesn't even have that detail, yet we're expected to vote on this set of bills this week.

Even if the fund somehow reaches this target, we will still see the housing crisis get worse. That is what the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill will does—it will see the housing crisis get worse in five years time. Currently, there is a shortage of 640,000 social and affordable homes, and that figure is set to grow by 75,000 over the next five years. Under this bill, Labor's plan is to build, at most, 30,000 affordable homes over the same five years. That will see a bigger shortage than there is now. That's close to 700,000 households—millions of people—that Labor has abandoned to poverty, housing stress, homelessness and rotting on social housing waiting lists around the country. These people include hundreds of thousands of women and children, many in domestic violence situations, and single parents struggling on low wages, unable to afford to buy a house and paying, sometimes, over 50 per cent of their income on rent.

This bill caps spending on housing at $500 million per year without indexation. It means there will be a real turn cut in housing spend. In fact, over the next 10 years, there will be a cumulative cut of $515 million in real-time spending on housing.

The reality of the scale of the crisis has already been made clear by the government's own National Housing Finance Investment Corporation, which has said that, in order to meet the shortfall of social and affordable homes, over the next 20 years Australia needs to build 891,000 homes. That's 45,000 homes per year. To put that into perspective, Labor's absolute best goal is 6,000 homes a year. In short, Labor's centrepiece housing legislation locks in permanent real term cuts to housing funding, does nothing for renters and will see the shortage of social and affordable housing grow and the housing crisis get worse. That's the reality of this bill as it stands: more homelessness, more people waiting longer for social housing, more renters unable to find an affordable place to live, and less money spent on housing every year.

To blindly support a housing package that will see the housing crisis get worse without scrutiny or negotiation would be an abdication of our responsibility to the millions of people crying out for a good, affordable home. The Greens have made clear a set of negotiating aims, including a minimum of $5 billion invested in social and affordable housing every year, indexed to inflation and removing the $500 million cap; a national plan for renters, including the Prime Minister putting a national rent freeze on the National Cabinet agenda and an immediate doubling of Commonwealth rent assistance; a $1 billion investment in remote Aboriginal housing, not the $200 million over five years that has been proposed by Labor. In fact, a lot of experts, when they talk about the shortage of remote Aboriginal housing, say that in the Northern Territory alone we need $2.8 billion of investment. All housing through the fund should meet minimum inclusive design standards, including the silver standard for accessibility.

All the Greens want to do is work constructively with the government to take a housing package that currently will see the housing crisis get worse and at least turn it into a plan that starts to improve the situation. The Greens want to negotiate on behalf of the millions of Australians screwed over by a housing system that generates massive profits for banks and property developers and higher rents and mortgages and financial stress for everyone else. We just saw the Commonwealth Bank announce a record profit in the same year that millions of Australians are struggling to cover their mortgages and rents. The response to all of these requests and critiques from some Labor MPs in the House is: 'Too bad. We would rather use this as an opportunity to bash the Greens and play some of the lowest common denominator politics you can imagine.'

The federal government has frozen rent increases before, and they can do it again. While Commonwealth rent assistance is a flawed scheme, up to one-third of private renters access Commonwealth rent assistance, so doubling it to a maximum of $400 a fortnight will provide immediate and real relief for 1.5 million rental households. That is money directly into the pockets of renters, and something the federal government could do right now.

To put $5 billion per year in context, next year alone the government will spend $12 billion in tax concessions for the super wealthy property investors via negative gearing and capital gains, while they remain committed to pending a quarter of a trillion dollars on the stage 3 tax cuts that will see every politician in this place receive an extra $9,000 a year. There is money in this budget to spend on an incredibly modest ask of $5 billion a year on social and affordable housing. It's quite breathtaking to watch some Labor MPs so passionately oppose the idea that we should invest even such a modest amount on public, community and affordable housing. How this can be defended, I have absolutely no idea.

When it comes to building public housing, the government claims that it is constrained by a shortage of materials and skills, but it is clear that we are going to see a decline in private construction over the next few years. Indeed, between September 2021 in September 2022 there was an over 20 per cent decline in new construction activity for housing. Approvals for private dwellings have been in sharp decline for the past 12 months, with further declines expected this year. This will leave a surplus of materials and skills that should be put to work building public, community and affordable housing.

While the Greens have made modest proposals for the basis of negotiations, it is beyond frustrating to know that Labor won't even come close to contemplating the structural reforms that we actually need to tackle the housing crisis. Beyond phasing out negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions, freezing rent increases and stopping the RBA from imposing unnecessary pain on millions of mortgage holders, now is exactly the time to seize this opportunity to use those excess skills and materials to embark on an ambitious program of building hundreds of thousands of well-designed, affordable public homes to be rented not just to the most vulnerable but to the nurses, teachers, cleaners, aged-care workers, young working families, pensioners—whoever needs a good home. Rather than outsourcing and privatising housing, the federal government could establish a proper federal housing authority that builds and rents housing to workers from all walks of life. A program like this could see medium-density designs with integrated childcare centres, rooftop gardens, and spacious, well-ventilated and well-insulated homes that stay cool in summer and warm in winter. Land could be preserved for public parks and community facilities. With rents capped at 25 per cent of income for low-income households, higher-income households could be charged rents calculated based on the cost of construction, ensuring a steady source of income to be reinvested in more public and affordable housing. In fact, similar models in Austria and the Netherlands have seen internationally renowned housing systems flourish. There is absolutely no reason why we can't do this in Australia as well.

Instead, Labor's response is to revive a housing system almost explicitly designed to generate profit for banks and property developers regardless of the human cost. Indeed, the Treasurer's so-called Housing Accord seems entirely aimed at relaxing planning and zoning laws, when all that will do is make more money for banks and developers. Labor's housing package will see the continuation of this policy.

In fact, what we have seen over the last few decades is a continued decline in social housing as a proportion of total housing stock, and that will continue under this package. Social housing as a proportion of total housing in Australia has already declined from just seven per cent to 3.7 per cent over the past few decades. That's right: only 3.7 per cent of housing in Australia is social housing. Under Labor's plan, this will drop to 3.3 per cent. This is being accelerated by the $157 billion Labor will spend in tax concessions for property investors via negative gearing and capital gains tax, while the so-called Housing Accord aims to hand more power to property developers and banks at precisely the time when we should be taking power out of their hands.

There are broader consequences of this policy as well. A deliberate government policy to outsource the provision of housing and the construction of our cities and towns to property developers and banks has seen the proliferation of destructive urban sprawl on the one hand and unsustainable overdevelopment on the other. Property developers and their political allies in the Labor and Liberal party present us with a false choice between urban sprawl and overdevelopment because it suits their financial interests.

There is, of course, an alternative. In Vienna, a city I have visited, which has a population density 10 times as great as that of some of our major capital cities, the construction of the city is led by a series of design and social principles. There are consistent wide open parks, public spaces and integrated public transport. Building heights are limited to five storeys, and 60 per cent of residents live in some form of rent controlled social housing. Because of this, teachers, lawyers, professors and engineers, as well as low-income residents, live and pay rent in social housing. Because of the income generated by this system, the entire system generates enough revenue that is reinvested back into housing. Rather than rents and mortgages being paid to private investors, banks and property developers, the money is paid directly to the city government and community housing providers. From walking around that city, as I have done, it's entirely clear that something similar could be achieved in Australia.

This is the future the Greens are fighting for. This is what we are pushing for. But we are acutely aware that both Labor and the Liberals would viciously oppose a housing system that has worked wonderfully well around the world, so instead we have come to the table with modest, reasonable negotiating aims that will ensure the housing crisis, at the very least, doesn't get worse.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve the right to speak.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today in support of this incredibly important legislation—the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills—that will make a huge difference to the lives of Australians. I am incredibly proud to be part of a Labor government who are again delivering on an election commitment central to what we took to the last election, and that was about the importance of housing to the dignity, security, health and prosperity of all people. That is why this was such an important part of the platform we took to the last election and we are delivering on it with urgency in this place.

I would hope that this would be something that every member of this House would be supporting, because I think that every member of this House, if they're engaging with their electorate, would be hearing about the struggles that Australians are having with housing: housing costs, homelessness and high rents. I certainly hear a lot about that in my electorate of Canberra, right here, where we have some of the highest rents in the country and very high housing prices.

As I said, Labor understands how central housing is to people's lives. We have already unlocked up to $575 million from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to invest in new social and affordable homes. Despite being in government for less than one year, we have already helped more than 1,700 Australians buy their first home through the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which was only introduced in October. I want to congratulate Minister Collins on her important work in this vital space. She has clearly hit the ground running.

We must be clear here, this is a matter of urgency, because for many Australians, the great Australian dream of owning their own home is just that—a dream—and far out of reach. Sadly, too many Australians are facing or experiencing homelessness, and we need to do much better on this. That is why Labor's ambitious housing reform agenda is so important and long overdue, because Australians deserve to have a safe and affordable place to call home. For 10 years we have watched as this crisis has got worse and those opposite floundered. The best solution they could come up with was to force first homebuyers to raid their superannuation to put down that ever-growing deposit, a policy which would increase demand without increasing supply. That was not the correct approach.

When Labor won the election, we promised we wouldn't waste a day in government and we haven't wasted time in delivering on this ambitious housing agenda. The housing legislation package will build more social and affordable homes. It will increase supply. It will be the most significant Australian government investment in housing in a generation and that is why it is remarkable that anyone in this place is not supportive of it. The legislation implements the government's commitment to establish the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to guarantee a pipeline of new social and affordable housing for Australians in need. It will transform the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation into Housing Australia as the national home for key housing programs and expand its activities. It will establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent advice to government on ways to increase housing supply and affordability. These commitments are part of our broader housing reform agenda.

We have already reached the landmark National Housing Accord, a shared ambition to build one million well-located homes from 2024, with $350 million in additional Commonwealth funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes from 2024, matched by the states with another 10,000 homes. We have widened the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility with up to $575 million immediately available to invest in social and affordable housing; and are developing a national housing and homelessness plan to set short, medium, and long-term goals to improve housing outcomes across Australia. This is an incredibly important piece of this puzzle, a long-term strategy, and something we didn't see under a decade of the previous government. We have implemented the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee and we are implementing the Help to Buy program, which will reduce the cost of buying a home and help more people into a home sooner.

These reforms are going to end a decade of neglect that got us into this position. We need urgent action on the housing crisis. As I said, every member of this House should be supporting this legislation and that is what their constituents who are battling with the cost of housing in Australia today would want them to do.

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me share the story of Kelly as reported by the ABC Tasmania just a few days ago. Kelly and her assistance dog, Ned, have been living in a tent at a caravan park in regional Tasmania for the past six months after being notified that the rent on her home would increase. Staying in the property became unaffordable. 'Rather than blacklist myself, so to speak, putting myself in a situation [where] I would get into financial strife, I didn't renew the lease,' she said. Kelly works 15 hours a fortnight, receives the disability pension and has been on the priority housing list since the middle last year. Despite the hardships of living in a tent, it is equally hard knowing she is not the only one. 'It's quite common practice. You say you're in a tent and like, it's not a big thing anymore, because it's becoming so normalised, unfortunately,' she said.

Just this week a man came into my office desperate for help in finding a place to live for him and his three children. He has been on the priority housing list for 18 months and is currently in short-term accommodation. Two weeks ago I sat with a woman in my electorate office. I will call her Lisa. Lisa is also living with her young daughter in short-term accommodation after moving out of her home to escape her controlling partner, walking out with just the clothes on her back. A week before that, a young woman, eight months pregnant, walked into my electorate office distressed at having nowhere to sleep that night. Yesterday there was an email from a constituent who has family members living in a tent on her property as they have nowhere else to go. This email was shortly followed by another one, this time from a mother of three who, while on the waiting list for housing, is also living in a tent with her three teenage children: 'My kids and I are just not safe at all and I just don't know what to do anymore.'

These are just a handful of the numerous cases that are raised in my office day after day and week after week, in the midst of a social and affordable housing crisis in Tasmania and particularly in my electorate of Bass. It's not just confined to Launceston and surrounding suburbs; I encounter it in rural areas, from Scottsdale to my home town of George Town and the beautiful but remote Flinders Island. We shouldn't have to see people leaving the towns they grew up in, where they're connected to family and their communities, because they can't access housing. Many tourism and hospitality businesses in some of our rural and regional tourist hotspots are also struggling to recruit and retain employees as there is simply nowhere for them to live. When I am out and about in my electorate, it is one of the top issues raised with me time and again, consistently up there with health and, recently, cost of living—all closely connected issues. The rise of electricity prices, grocery costs and interest rates is a triple threat, and I know everyone in here is seeing the impact in their electorates. There are too many like Kelly who simply cannot afford the increase in rental prices and are left with nowhere else to go.

Just last week Magnolia Place, a refuge for women and children escaping domestic and family violence, officially launched 15 new self-contained units. This project has been more than 20 years in the making and is one that I was proud to play a role in funding through the previous coalition government. But, as I acknowledged at the time, demand still far outweighs supply and, particularly for those seeking transition accommodation, there is an acute need now for these to be built. As I meet with constituents who have been waiting for more than a year and a half for somewhere to live or are couch surfing while pregnant, due to lack of social or affordable housing, how can I in good conscience say to them that I commit to doing what I can to help them and then turn around and vote against a policy that, though flawed, may help?

We are in the midst of a social and affordable housing crisis. In 2022, just last year, the 12-month average to receive housing across the state was around 66.6 per cent, compared with 58.9 per cent a year earlier. According to data published by Everybody's Home, Bass has the highest proportion of people waiting for social housing in the state, at around 6.2 per cent.

There are undoubtedly holes in what the government has proposed, which I will address further on, but, at its core, it is a step forward towards providing more Australians—Tasmanians, mums and dads, women escaping family and domestic violence, older Australians and younger people—with a roof over their head. I can't stand here as an elected representative and make a choice to ignore their needs. The housing crisis cannot be solved by one level of government on its own, and I firmly believe a coordinated, integrated and collaborative approach from all three levels of government is the best chance we have to create a long-term, sustainable solution. I always view my role in this place as that: how can I use the privilege I have here to be part of the solution?

I believe this bill further builds on the foundations of what the coalition government has achieved. Gains were made through the establishment of our National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, which will soon be known as Housing Australia. We helped fund more than 21,000 social and affordable homes. The establishment of the NHFIC also created an Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, providing cheaper and longer-term finance to registered community housing providers. Since its launch it has delivered $2.9 billion of low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings. Additionally, it unlocked 6,900 social, affordable and market dwellings, through our $1 billion infrastructure facility, to make housing supply more responsive to demand.

I'm proud that, just a few years ago, I stood with the member for Deakin as he announced the abolishment of $150 million in Tasmanian government debt, with the requirement that the state government redirect all scheduled repayments to programs that increase access to social housing, reduce homelessness and improve housing supply across the state. This work is well underway, but more is needed.

I commend the state government on their creation last year of Homes Tasmania, a dedicated housing authority responsible for delivering improved housing services and increasing the supply of social and affordable housing across the state. Homes Tasmania is playing a key role in the state government's strategy to deliver 10,000 new social and affordable homes by 2032.

This legislation has been cautiously welcomed by stakeholders in the state. Centacare Evolve Housing's CEO, Ben Wilson, said that the initiative will foster greater cooperation between state and federal governments, the construction industry and community housing providers, in order to tackle the issues of housing and homelessness.

However, there are still a number of questions, as raised by others in this chamber, that I would like to see answered. There are significant gaps in detail on how the funding will be delivered. As it appears now, all states would be competing for funding, without clear criteria or process. It's also important that there is enough flexibility in the process for proposals to be considered on their merits in addressing community need, and I call on the minister to be more forthcoming with this information. I also support the member for Goldstein's call for the government to clarify how they will commit to the fund if there is a shortfall. As an elected representative for a regional and rural area, I, like the member for Indi, want to see the specific needs of regional and remote Australia addressed through the bill.

Many questions remain, and I am hopeful that the minister will continue to work to address these issues, and I'm optimistic that this bill may be further improved in the Senate. I will continue to monitor and respond accordingly.

But, when it comes to the lives of northern Tasmanians, now is not the time to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As the government, you are expected to solve these issues, and I'm not going to get in the way. But supporting you does not get you off the hook if you don't deliver what is promised through this bill. I will act in good faith, but I will be holding you to account to ensure that you have delivered what it is that you have promised.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Security is a prerequisite to prosperity. Foundational to security is having a roof over your head. This is acutely known by our Prime Minister, who grew up in precarious circumstances himself in social housing, and by our housing minister, Julie Collins, who speaks quietly of the trauma associated with her period of homelessness. Their lived experience, plus the growing backlog of Australians seeking homeownership, or, at the minimum, shelter, after a wasted decade, is what is driving our determination to act.

The problem is of such magnitude that many of my young constituents in Higgins have given up on the prospect of homeownership. Rather than homeownership being a right, it has become an aspiration—and it is receding like a mirage in the desert. My constituents are resigned to joining the 42 per cent of people in Higgins who rent.

In Higgins, rented units make up 29 per cent of dwellings—well above the nine per cent nationally. And rent is not trivial. It ranges from $386 in Murrumbeena, $395 in Carnegie, $411 in Windsor, $415 in South Yarra and $421 per week in Armadale and Prahran, to a whopping $590 in Kooyong—well above the greater Melbourne median of $390. According to the 2021 Census, 27 per cent of renters in Higgins are experiencing renter stress, paying 30 per cent of their income or more towards rent. And rents have gone up since then, pushing more of my constituents into renter stress. In the 18 months to February this year, rent increased across the board in these suburbs, the increases ranging from 7.1 per cent in Armadale to 12.5 per cent in South Yarra.

Getting a foot into the housing market has become a pipedream for young people, not only in Higgins but across Australia. In the highest-renting suburbs in Higgins, this is what median house prices are doing. As of February last year, 2022, median house prices were as follows: Armadale and South Yarra, $2 million—median; Prahran, $1.8 million; Carnegie and Murrumbeena, $1.7 million; and Windsor, $1.6 million. They have been going north for the past five years in these suburbs—the same suburbs, incidentally, with the highest numbers of renters. And why wouldn't people want to buy in these areas, with their village feel, proximity to public transport and amenity, vibrant shopping strips and restaurants? My constituents keep flocking to them. With every year, house prices stretch further away.

Amanda's daughter is a nurse, a few years out, who is trying to get into the housing market. She is a doer and a saver, having put away $100,000 in savings since she worked as a teenager at McDonald's. Remarkable. She works near a big city hospital and justifiably wants to live near where she works. Those late shifts plus the emergency asks when no-one else is available demand that she drop everything and come to work to serve her community. Despite doing everything right, Amanda's daughter is struggling. Amanda's daughter's story is tailor-made to some of the solutions we are offering. Or is it the other way around—that our proposals are tailor-made to her predicament?

It starts with the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion investment to build 30,000 social and affordable homes over five years, which interlocks with the National Housing Accord. The latter, led by our Treasurer, commits us, in partnership with the states and territories, industry, super funds and construction, to build a million homes over five years from 2024. Managed by the Future Fund guardians, some of whom live in my electorate, the Housing Australia Future Fund will plough returns from the $10 billion invested back into building social and affordable housing. Ten thousand homes will be allocated to essential workers like Amanda's daughter, a nurse, but also to other workers like police—people we simply cannot live without. An additional 4,000 homes will be earmarked for vulnerable Australians, like women fleeing domestic violence, and older Australians. The fastest growing group of homeless Australians are women over the age of 55, who find themselves marooned, without a place to call home, when their circumstances change due to relationship breakdown, job loss or bereavement. Indeed, in Australia, 7,500 women around the country return to violent partners because they have nowhere else to go. Urgency is further heightened, of course, by the pandemic, which has exacerbated domestic violence.

Women fleeing family violence are one particularly desperate group, but there are others covered by our fund, including veterans who have fallen through the cracks, who have been allocated $30 million, and First Peoples in remote communities, living in a state of disrepair and squalor, who have been allocated $200 million over the next five years. The fund will target people living on the edge, either in the throes of homelessness or at risk. We want to pull them back from that edge so that they can stabilise their lives and move forwards. It's a preventative measure, like a handbrake that stops the slide into hopelessness and dysfunction.

Domestic violence, a shortfall of affordable housing, unemployment, mental illness, family breakdown and substance misuse contribute to homelessness. Often, as a doctor, I would say, 'There but for the grace of God go I,' because I often came across patients—people who had pretty standard, what we would call 'normal lives', living in suburbia—who had fallen on hard times. This had destabilised them and sent them on a downward spiral. They ended up washing up on my ward. Living in a car or couch surfing means that homelessness can be hidden from plain sight.

The shame of defeat weighs heavily on homeless people as they spin their wheels in search of enduring shelter. That's why we have established the interim National Housing Supply and Affordability Council—to provide independent advice to government on options. One of the council's key tasks will be to advise us on the National Housing and Homelessness Plan, a plan to deal with homelessness. Given planning and zoning is not the remit of the Commonwealth, our government has fulsomely engaged with the states and territories, holding three meetings with our state counterparts to ensure that we are all pulling in the same direction. We have rejected the divisive federal-state antics that were the signature of the previous government, because the scale and the severity of the problem is too great.

In Higgins, Prahran was a hotspot for homelessness for the duration of the time that I worked at the Alfred, and this was where I picked up most of my patients, and they're still there. A national homelessness plan is long overdue after a wasted decade, where people like my patients fell further behind. Given the urgency of the situation, with families living in tents in parts of Australia, we cannot wait for the fund to start paying out, which is why we have unlocked $575 million from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to get going. For my constituents with itchy feet, the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee may appeal. Launched three months ahead of time by our government, it has already helped 1,600 Australians into homes in the regions. They are living the dream, but it's also easing pressure on the rental market.

We accept this suite of proposals is a start, and calls for more ambition are legitimate. More ambition means more construction workers, more materials, more boots on the ground, industry expertise—all of which are in dire short supply. In Victoria, major construction projects like the Suburban Rail Loop, Big Build, level crossing removals and hospitals have added further constraints on the work force. This is where our free TAFE courses targeting urgent skills like construction kick in. I need my constituents and others around Australia who may be searching for options to check out the offerings at their local TAFE. In my electorate it's Holmesglen, and it's a fantastic place—a happy place of learning linked to career pathways that I have visited many times.

The magnitude of the housing crisis is the clarion call to action which successive Liberal-Nationals governments failed to heed. We in the Albanese government are geared for action on this front because a home, as I said in my maiden speech, is like the warmth of a million suns. Let's bring our people out of the shadows and into the light. I commend the bills to the House.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and the associated bills. I'm happy to rise and speak on housing because housing is an issue not just in one particular place but right around the country. As the former Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services, I drilled down into this space and worked with housing ministers across this space.

We looked at the homelessness rates—and I'm eagerly waiting for the current Minister for Housing to release the results of the 2021 census. The previous census, in 2016, showed there were a couple of areas of homelessness that actually improved but there were three areas that got particularly worse. The areas that got particularly worse were in overcrowding, which is commonplace in other parts of the world. If you go and live in some of the Pacific islands, with our neighbours, it's not uncommon for people to all sleep in one room. Here it's classed as homelessness, where you get a lot of people in severe overcrowding. That is one of the fastest-growing areas in Australia, and it'll be interesting to see the results there. I note that we gave the Western Australian government a payment to help with this. Do you know how much housing they built? None—absolutely none. They spent all the money on roads and infrastructure, which was a real shame.

The other area that is of particular concern is around domestic violence. That area has one of the fastest-growing rates of homelessness as well. With this bill the government wants to build 700 new homes, I think, for women and children escaping DV. But the former Morrison government built 6,000 places for women and children escaping domestic violence. The minister for social services at the time—I was working under her as the assistant minister—and I picked out those 6,000 places, including in the member for Solomon's electorate through the Salvation Army up in Darwin; we built some safe places. I'd be interested to know from the member for Solomon whether they are built yet; I haven't had the chance to get up there since that announcement. There were other places in Victoria and New South Wales where the coalition government did some really good work with that $60 million safe places package.

The other thing the coalition government did really well was support first home buyers. We helped 300,000 people into their first home. The Liberal and Nationals parties want people to own their own homes. That's why we put into place the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which the Labor government, in opposition at the time, voted against. It's also why we did the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, which was really important as well. That has helped so many first home buyers right around the country. There are over 300,000 more people in their own homes now because of the coalition government. It was a very important policy.

We also helped community housing providers through NHFIC. The current shadow minister, Mr Sukkar, did some great work with NHFIC to open up opportunities for community housing providers all around the country. In particular, New South Wales took advantage of that the most.

In summing up, I would be interested to see those results in relation to the 2021 census, particularly around boarding houses—whether that has reduced. I want to commend the former Labor minister up there who worked with me to send letters to boarding house providers in Queensland to try and reduce the level of homelessness in Queensland around boarding houses.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may resume at a later hour, and, if the member's speech was interrupted, he will be granted leave to continue when the debate is resumed.