Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Griffith proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government's failure to take meaningful action to address skyrocketing rents and house prices that are driving the housing crisis for renters, first home buyers and mortgage holders.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

How is it that, in the middle of one of the worst housing crises this country has seen in generations, this Labor government finds it within themselves to give more money to property investors than they're spending on renters or public housing or any other housing measure combined? We know that every single year under this Labor government the housing crisis has become worse. Rents continue to go up. House prices continue to go up. Mortgages continue to go up.

This Labor government in the most recent federal budget locks in tens of billions of dollars, if not hundreds of billions of dollars, in tax handouts for property investors. It is the same budget where they lock in $4,500-a-year tax cuts for every politician in this place earning over $200,000 a year. If that was not enough for the 75 per cent of Labor members in this place and the other place who are property investors, they also continue to get lucrative tax handouts in the form of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. The crucial point is this: not only do they receive those tax handouts but they support them, protect them and refuse to phase them out.

Last year in August national cabinet, under pressure from the Greens, met. At that national cabinet, all but one seat at that table was a member of the Labor Party, and they had the power to freeze and cap rent increases. Before them sat millions of renters whose lives are being destroyed by a housing system that far too often puts the profits of investors, developers and banks—and, it just so happens, property investors in this place—ahead of the lives of renters. They have the power. And what did they do? They locked in unlimited rent increases. The human consequences of that decision stand before us today. We know that if they had frozen rent increases in 2023 the average renter would have saved $4,000 by this point.

The money-saving is one thing, but how many mothers would not have been evicted onto the street because they could not afford the rent? How many pensioners would not have to choose between feeding themselves and staying in their rental property? How many families would not have had to move into their cars because their landlord put up the rent because this government refused to coordinate with the states and territories and put a freeze and cap on rent increases?

And then they have the gall to get up and talk about public and social housing. Really? It is genuinely incredible. If this government spent as much money on property investors as they spend on public housing, then maybe we would start to fix this crisis. But the reality is that, even if you take all of their commitments on social housing—which are extremely minimal compared to what countries do around the world—even if you take them all into account, the shortage of public and community housing and affordable housing will continue to grow under this government. It is genuinely incredible.

They talk about Commonwealth rent assistance. They love to crow about the fact that it has increased by $9 a week. One demonstration that there are few renters on the Labor front benches—in fact, I assume there are none, although there are certainly a lot of property investors, including the housing minister and the Prime Minister—is that they think that $9 a week is good for renters when their rents are going up by $50 to $100 per week.

Let's be clear about this. On the latest data, 40 per cent of people receiving Commonwealth rent assistance are still in rental stress. We received a story—and this is just one demonstration of how broken this system is—this person said: 'I have moved six homes in 14 months. Then another sold from under me. I am now in a caravan, living on the streets with my kids, unable to continue running my cleaning business, so relying on income support, living in poverty.' She has had to start homeschooling her children because the constant moving was destroying their mental health. She has had to start homeschooling her children because of the constant moving destroying their mental health. Before getting a caravan, she applied for 450 homes. The local council moved them along after one day of sleeping in an empty parking spot away from homes, because it was an 'inconvenience' for those who have a home. To be clear, that person won't even receive Commonwealth rent assistance because of how restrictive that payment is. Those people won't get any help.

At the end of the day, when it comes to all of this, the government's message is that its ambitious housing platform is working across the board. Well, it's certainly not working for the millions of renters in housing stress. It's certainly not working for the 750,000 households who won't have a public, community or affordable home under this government. There is a thing that they could do right now. They could freeze and cap rent increases. They could phase out tax handouts for property investors. And they could invest that money in building hundreds of thousands of good quality homes sold and rented at prices that people could actually afford. All they have to do is look around the world to Singapore, to Austria, to the Netherlands and across Europe, where they build good housing and rentals and sell those at prices people can afford. They actually treat housing as a human right rather than something for property investors to make a lot of money off.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say, we do understand Australians are doing it tough, whether they be Australians trying to purchase a home, Australians with a mortgage or Australians who are renting. We do know, which is why, since we have come to office, we've announced and are implementing $32 billion in new housing initiatives. These are right across the board. They're helping more Australians into homeownership and helping renters. We're building more social and affordable homes and more transitional and emergency accommodation for women and children fleeing family violence, and we're providing additional support in terms of the Commonwealth rent assistance increases.

Right across the board, we need to build more homes for Australians. Australia doesn't have enough homes, but we haven't had enough homes for a long time now. We haven't been building enough homes, and the answer to Australia's housing challenges is supply. That is why we are focused on working with other tiers of government, with the community housing sector and indeed with the construction industry to get more homes on the ground as quickly as we can. Between the Commonwealth, states and territories, we are investing record amounts and getting as many homes built as quickly as we can, bearing in mind, of course, the capacity constraints in the sector. Understanding those constraints, we're looking at alternative methods of construction for homes, including modular homes and new technologies. We are training more tradies to make sure we can build the homes that Australia requires. We are looking at existing people in Australia on visas who have the skills and prioritising them in terms of skills recognition to get them into building more homes faster.

We are looking right across the board at the solutions and working with other tiers of government. We had the historic National Cabinet agreement last August, and that agreement will change the red tape around homes in Australia. That will make a massive difference when you look at the planning and zoning reforms that the states agreed they would do and when you look at the renters' rights the states agreed to lift so that we have more consistency and improved renters' rights in this country. The Grattan Institute modelled it and said our plans would save renters $32 billion in rent. We are wary of the fact that renters are doing it tough, but this housing challenge that we have at the moment is not going to be solved overnight; it will be solved carefully and methodically. There is not a silver bullet like some opposite seem to think there is. There absolutely is not. If there was, we absolutely would have used it.

But we are working very carefully to get as many homes on the ground as quickly as we can. We have an ambitious national housing target of 1.2 million homes across the country starting on 1 July and going up to the end of the decade. We are really serious about getting more homes on the ground. Just last week I joined the member for Boothby to announce more than 360 new and improved homes across South Australia through the Social Housing Accelerator. We provided $2 billion to the states last year. In the same week—just last week—we announced more than 100 new social and affordable homes in Melbourne, also from the Social Housing Accelerator. Last month we announced 700 new social and affordable homes, right across the country in New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria. That's just in the last few weeks, that we have been on the ground getting tangible homes underway. We are meeting with tenants who are in homes that have been built because of decisions our government has made and that would not have been built otherwise.

Our recent budget includes an additional $6.2 billion in new investments, to build more homes, to slash some of the red tape and to get more housing on the ground. The budget specifically commits $1 billion to get homes built sooner, which will be direct funding for states and territories to get the roads and the infrastructure set up around some of the homes so that we can get more homes.

From 1 July, we have the new National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness; $9.3 billion for the states and territories. I was meeting with the ACT housing minister and the member for Canberra in the member's seat this morning. I was talking to the ACT minister about how important it is that they have this five-year agreement. The agreement includes the doubling of the Commonwealth homelessness funding of $400 million every year, which is matched by the states and territories. With our five-year agreement, we are also providing funding certainty to the states and territories.

On top of the agreement for the $9.3 billion, there is an additional $1 billion for Housing Australia that will go towards homes for young Australians and women and children fleeing family violence. This will be through Housing Australia. We have the Housing Australia Future Fund—the $10 billion fund. Our National Housing Accord means another 10,000 affordable homes will be going through Housing Australia. The fund only passed the parliament in October because it was delayed by the Greens teaming up with the Liberals to take an additional six months. If it wasn't for that, we would have homes on the ground today. But it was delayed by the Greens political party. It was passed in October. By November we had set up the fund and by January we'd gone out to tender. The tender closed just a few weeks ago and we'll be having announcements—getting first homes announced and under construction—later this year. We expect to have this up and running as soon as we can.

If it wasn't for the Greens political party these homes would be on the ground and under construction already. They need to accept responsibility for their role in delaying homes on the ground. They have been playing politics rather than getting tangible outcomes for people on the ground. When I meet with people in social and affordable homes and when I meet with renters, they are concerned about delays in getting homes on the ground. When I explain to them that the Liberal Party voted against new homes and that the Greens held up new homes, they are aghast. They are aghast that people would play games on what is a serious issue and, frankly, those opposite need to take responsibility for the decisions that they made.

We have more legislation in parliament around homeownership and those opposite have also been chipping in here. They claim to be the party of home ownership, but they're not supporting the shared-equity scheme, even though the LNP in Queensland supported the enabling legislation in the Queensland parliament just last month. The LNP in Queensland support it. The former Liberal Premier of New South Wales and the Tasmanian Liberal Premier both support shared-equity schemes to get Australians into homeownership sooner. But while the Greens political party say that shared equity is part of their policy, they apparently don't support this scheme either.

We're talking about 40,000 Australians that could be supported into homeownership through our shared-equity scheme. Apparently, that's not enough. But it is just one part; that is the point of the broad suite of policies under the Homes for Australia Plan. We have already made changes to the Home Guarantee Scheme, which has helped more than 110,000 Australians into homeownership since we came into office—110,000 Australians who are homeowners today, who wouldn't be if it weren't for the changes and the expansions that our government has made. We want to do more with Help to Buy and so when it's in the Senate—whether it be tomorrow or next week—those opposite, the Liberal Party and the Greens party, should be supporting it in the Senate. They should be telling their senators that the time has come and this legislation needs to be supported. It's important to support people right across the board, whether it be supporting people into new homes, supporting people into homeownership, building more homes for people to buy, building more affordable rentals, supporting more social and affordable homes or supporting transitional accommodation for women and children or older Australians. They should be supporting all the above because we need more of all the above. We need to build homes of every type right across the country.

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

That's right—build to rent.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My colleague is talking about the build-to-rent legislation. This is important legislation that will get more affordable rentals on the ground in Australia. We have been consulting with the industry and the sector about getting particularly some overseas pension funds to build more affordable rentals in Australia, like they do everywhere else. The UK changed their policies around build to rent, and they have seen great success in getting more affordable rentals on the ground. We need to see more of that in Australia because we need more homes of every type.

We're getting accused of locking people into rentals by those opposite. We're being accused by the Greens party of not doing enough social and affordable homes. We're doing all the above, all of it, all at once. We have a comprehensive plan. It's called the Homes for Australia Plan. It's $32 billion in new initiatives. It includes direct funding for social and affordable homes, funding for states and territories for enabling infrastructure, and incentive payments for states and territories to do the right thing and to change their laws. We need to get more homes for Australians that need them.

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

If Labor think they are solving the housing crisis, they are delusional. If Labor think putting forward the same old, tired policies is going to fix the housing crisis, they are delusional. If Labor think handing out $175 billion of public money to the wealthy and to property investors to help them buy their fourth home is somehow helping, they are delusional. If Labor think letting landlords increase the rent by however much they want is helping, they are delusional. If Labor think it's easy to get ahead right now and that somehow a first home or even renting is in the reach of everyday people, they are delusional. They simply cannot see what is in front of their eyes: a housing crisis that continues to escalate every single day, forcing more people into their cars, into tents and onto the street; a housing crisis that means it is near impossible to buy your first home, even if you do all the right things that are asked of you.

Labor continue to tinker around the edges while at the very same time making the massive systemic problems even worse. Then they turn around and want a pat on the back for doing less than the bare minimum. Under Labor, you now need an income of over $164,000 to not be in housing stress; that's the average. That's 1.6 times the average income. How is that achievable for a nurse? How is that achievable for a teacher? It is not. Labor haven't just left renters behind; they have left them in the dirt. And they then try and tell you the worst lie of all—that this is somehow all we can hope for, that change is not possible. But we want to say very clearly that it is.

The Greens have done the work. We've got a plan to freeze rents so that wages can catch up, to cap rent increases and to end the tax handouts for the wealthy property investors that are denying renters the chance to buy their first home, and use that money to build and deliver the public homes that we need and that people can afford. Labor might be the party of property investors, led by a property investor prime minister, but the Greens are fighting for renters and first home buyers. Change is possible, and the Greens are here to fight for it.

To Labor: if this terrific plan that covers all the bases is working, why have average rents gone up $100 a week under Labor? Why has the average mortgage gone up by $200 a week? If Labor's plan is working, why are more people skipping meals, avoiding going to see the doctor and avoiding buying things kids need for school? Because they have to deal with a massive rent hike that has just come in or a soaring mortgage bill.

If Labor are doing these terrific things in public housing, then they clearly weren't where I was over the weekend—at the public housing estates in North Melbourne, where residents are distressed and terrified because Labor wants to demolish the public housing that they live in. When I asked the Prime Minister about this, he said, 'No-one lives there.' Tell that to the thousands of residents who are now worried about what is going to happen to them and their communities as Labor are set to demolish the public housing towers and not promise to build public housing in their place—because do you know what they're going to do? They're going to allow private developers to come in and build on the land and maybe have a sprinkling of social housing in there. Do you know what documents that we've managed to secure over the last couple of weeks have shown? There's even consideration being given to putting an Officeworks, a Kmart or a Repco on some of these sites.

Labor has a plan to privatise public housing land and hand it over to big property developers while thousands of people are struggling to pay the rent. If we could spend on public housing what Labor is spending on wealthy property investors to help them go and buy their fourth, fifth and sixth homes, then we could solve the housing crisis in this country. But instead we have a Labor Party that is making the problem worse and backing wealthy property investors at the expense of renters and first home buyers. Renters will have the chance to make their voices heard; if Labor doesn't fix the problem now and have the guts to rein in those handouts to wealthy property investors, expect to hear renters' voices at the next election.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I read the MPI put forward by my neighbour the member for Griffith—I do share his concerns about the housing crisis—it was surprising that he would be so political and suggest that the Labor Party is doing nothing when it comes to housing. First and foremost, the Labor Party is about increasing supply. That's what we need to do first and foremost. I do have concerns about the Greens policy. As reported by the ABC, constitutional expert Professor Anne Twomey reckons it would not be constitutional. That is the concern I have. It's been a while since I did constitutional law, but, in terms of the head of power that the Greens are hoping to find magically, I think that would be a problem.

We know that we have the power to give the states and territories moneys to build more housing. We need to do a lot more when it comes to building housing, and we've got some plans in place. So to suggest that there's nothing, when we know that things are being held up by the Greens—we could have more homes on the ground. But look at what happens when we actually get an opportunity to build some social housing. We know the Greens love a good stunt. They stunt as a pack all the time when it comes to making decisions about housing, or anything, and then they'll get the social memes out there. But what do they actually do? I walked past the member for Griffith's room the other day and I saw this sign in the window: 'Build public housing—beautiful, well designed, sustainable'. I agree with it. It's a great thing to do. But I obviously need to get a sticker and fix up the poster so it says 'Build public housing but not in a Greens electorate'. That's what we need to do.

I know they're taking their lead from the member for Melbourne, who said in Clifton Hill that the Brotherhood of St Laurence would not be able to build housing. The Brotherhood of St Lawrence—not exactly Gina Rinehart. The Brotherhood of St Laurence—doing great work.

Let's look at what some of the other Greens have said, closer to home. We have a quote here from the Daily Mail about Elizabeth Watson-Brown:

A Greens MP who helped to design a 375million apartment block where individual units were going for as much as $8million refused to back a Uniting Church plan to build 92 units on an abandoned chicken farm

The Financial Review said the Greens opposed a developmental proposal for 349 apartments across two towers in West End—in the member for Griffith's area: 'Chandler-Mather opposes two 26-storey towers in his electorate, despite the 470 new homes it would create. His argument was it will create more congestion.' More congestion? This is from the Guardiannot exactly a right-wing mag:

The Greens' housing spokesperson has led a long-running community campaign against a proposal … to build more than 850 dwellings—

on vacant land in Bulimba, at Bulimba Barracks. That's from the Guardian. Or this from the ABC—not exactly a right-wing publication either:

Apartment towers up to 75 stories proposed for Woolloongabba—

again, in Griffith—

to alleviate housing crisis opposed by Greens.

We know that they have these weird policy ideas. The Productivity Commission report in 2023 said:

Rent control is not an effective way to improve affordability for renters.

We know that we're going to give renters a helping hand on Monday. We're actually going to give them a tax cut, we're going to give them a—

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A wage rise!

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A wage rise. And we're also going to give every household energy bill relief. We know that we are going to help them as much as possible. But the best way to help the people of Australia is to build more houses. Build more houses!

To come in here and be a champion for housing but then to be a mouse back in your electorate, where you won't support public housing—

An honourable member interjecting—

It was for public housing! I saw it. And I hadn't heard this story about the Brotherhood of St Laurence—that well-known property developer! We know the Greens have a very simple policy: build more social housing, but not in our electorates. Not in our electorates! That's their policy—rank hypocrisy! You should be ashamed of yourselves! Why don't you actually come out and support some social housing around Australia and stop blocking social housing, which is what you've been doing?

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Along with food and water, Maslow's hierarchy of needs places warmth, rest, security and safety as absolutely fundamental human needs. Safe, secure housing, a place to call home, represents these basic human needs. It's a major determinant in people's lifelong health and wellbeing.

However, in today's Australia so many people, particularly young people, are excluded not only from the chance of owning their own home but from housing security. We hear countless stories of the lack of renters' rights and of renters who face eviction in the face of unaffordable rent hikes, or who have to move home frequently. I hear from friends how their adult children are having to stay at home well into their 20s and 30s. I spoke to a class of year 11 legal studies students last week, and for every single student in that class housing affordability was one of their very top issues of concern.

As a GP, I witness too many young families being forced to move away from Mackellar—away from their networks and extended families—in order to find a place where they can afford to live. In Mackellar, the median price for a two-bedroom apartment is $1.1 million, the median price for a house is $2.5 million and the median rent is an eye-watering $1,300 a week. The issue is causing considerable distress in my community and the lack of affordable housing is breaking up families and putting extra stress on young people.

As a GP, I also struggle to help women find emergency accommodation when they need to leave for domestic violence reasons. Our local women's shelters are still having to turn away scores of women and their children each week. And women over the age of 50 are now the most likely group to find themselves homeless. Now as an MP, I repeatedly hear stories of how difficult it is to recruit essential workers such as carers, teachers, nurses and policemen to our region because they simply can't afford to live there. Already, a public dental clinic and a drug and alcohol rehabilitation service in Mackellar have had to close because of their inability to recruit staff. We hear the word 'crisis' often these days, but it's safe to say that housing affordability in Australia has hit crisis levels. In the 1980s, the average house price was 3.5 times the average income. Now it's eight times and rising.

What are the solutions? Yes, we do need to address immigration levels, and this is happening. Yes, we absolutely need to build more houses and homes, and I welcome the government's investment over the last two years in this. But building houses and apartments doesn't happen overnight. It is deeply unfortunate that in 2013 the prime minister of the day, Mr Tony Abbott, made the seriously shortsighted decision to abolish the National Housing Supply Council. The council's role was to provide estimates, projections, analysis and policy advice in relation to housing supply and demand. If that council had remained, I wonder if we would be in this position of a severe lack of supply that we have now in housing? Instead, current policies such as the first home buyer subsidies, and grants from consecutive federal and state governments, have artificially pushed up property prices, exacerbating—not solving—the problem. As The Economist's Saul Eslakesaid:

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their ostensible objectives.

We need solutions, so recently I convened a citizens' assembly, the Mackellar people's jury on housing. On an issue such as housing which affects everyone, it is important that I clearly understand the views from people across my electorate, not just the loudest voices. It was wonderful to see the Mackellar residents in action. A group of 30 people randomly selected came together to listen to a range of experts and to deliberate. The goal was to come up with three priority solutions to the housing problem.

Citizens' assemblies are a way of bringing people back into their democracy, recognising that people have a great depth of knowledge, and are a respectful and constructive way of advocating and negotiating public policy positions. I will have a lot more to say on this issue in due course but I thank the participants sincerely for their constructive and considered contributions.

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

I am very pleased to speak on this MPI today and clear the record about this government's bold achievements on housing policy. Contrary to what we have heard from those opposite who brought this MPI forward, the 47th Parliament under the Albanese Labor government and the Minister for Housing, who joins us for this debate, have been absolutely transformational when it comes to housing.

I have listened to those who have spoken from the Greens political party this afternoon and it feels like they are living in a different world. They are living in a world where the constitutional prohibition on Commonwealth rent controls does not exist. They live in a world where the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which will build social and affordable housing into perpetuity, did not pass this parliament thanks to the great work of the housing minister, the member for Franklin, and they live in a world where they did not delay that incredibly important policy that so many Australians could not wait to see pass this parliament. They delayed that policy. They live in a world where the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator was not part of our first budget back in government and the $3 billion new homes bonus did not happen. They live in a world where they are not publicly opposing our landmark Help to Buy scheme in the Senate right now.

Quite frankly, they are living in a fantasy world. We in the Albanese Labor government live in reality. As everyone in this place would be aware, we need more housing in this country. We are getting on with that job each and every day as a government. As everyone in this place would be aware, it was quite a chilly morning in Canberra this morning. But luckily for the minister for Housing and I, along with ACT Minister for Housing, Yvette Berry, we were looking at a lovely warm and new public housing dwelling this morning. We were able to tour five new dwellings in the inner north of Canberra, in my electorate. The units were beautifully designed and energy efficient with an eight-star rating and ready for new tenants to move in very soon. It shows what can be done when we have two progressive Labor governments working together to deliver what Australians need.

Starting on 1 July the ACT will receive an additional $157 million in funding from the Commonwealth to build more of these excellent public housing homes all across Canberra. This is part of our five-year national agreement on social housing and homelessness. The Albanese government's ambitious housing agenda will see 1.2 million homes built under the National Housing Accord by the end of the decade. In the last budget alone, we invested a further $6.2 billion to build more homes, bringing total federal investment in this term of parliament to $32 billion. Because on this side of the House we are building the homes that will house Australians for generations to come. As of December 2023, there were already over 226,000 dwellings under construction—six months before the accord period even commenced. We're working with the states and territories to secure a better deal for renters, including the development of a nationally consistent framework with a requirement for reasonable grounds for eviction, moving towards limiting rental increases to once a year and phasing in minimal rental standards.

With policies such as the Housing Australia Future Fund and the Social Housing Accelerator already up and running, and Help to Buy coming soon, this government is fully committed to securing our housing future. It's Labor that actually cares about solving the Liberal's housing crisis while those in the Greens political party are just trying to score points. To think that they would stand in the way of these important schemes to build more houses for Australians!

Here in Canberra it's no different from anywhere else in the country. We have a housing crisis. People need affordable housing. We need more public housing, we need more social housing and we are getting on with that job. It was so lovely this morning to go and visit these bright, beautiful new dwellings and know that Canberrans who might have never had stable housing in their lives before could experience the transformational power of a stable place to live and a roof over their head so they can get on with the rest of their lives with that security. That is what this minister and this government are working to deliver each and every day that we are on the side of this chamber.

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

The housing crisis has been building for decades and now it's hitting Australians hard. At my Curtin housing forums a representative mix of constituents recognised our need for affordable and diverse housing. Housing prices in Australia are too high. They've increased from three to four times the average income in 2000 to seven to eight times now, so housing is half as affordable as it was 20 years ago. Australia is the third-least populated country on earth but contains the second-most expensive housing. This is bad for the country in a number of ways.

Generations of young Australians are being held back by the cost of shelter. They're living with their parents for longer while saving, delaying life decisions, taking out huge mortgages, borrowing or begging from their parents, living further out from their communities or renting long term. Since 2000, household debt has increased from 0.5 times to two times the average disposable income. Declining home ownership, particularly for millennials and gen Z, creates a lack of security. Increasingly, wealth is determined by inheritance, not by education and hard work. This also undermines the proper functioning of our economy. It redistributes rather than creates wealth. It focuses wealth creation in an unproductive asset. In many ways it's meaningless to hold wealth in a house when housing is so expensive. Everyone needs a place to live, so you can't swap the wealth you hold in your house for anything else.

This situation is only going to get worse for every generation unless government policies changes. The fundamental problem is that successive governments have realised that no-one complains when the value of their house increases. Creating policies that increase the value of housing is politically popular, so both major parties keep throwing fuel on the fire. In about 2000 we changed tax incentives in an attempt to increase housing supply for renters. By allowing tax deduction against other income for losses incurred from investment property, then only paying tax on half the gain, government policies made property the best means of wealth creation. But now, with rental vacancies below one per cent, we can see that it didn't work to increase housing supply.

Successive governments have also thrown fuel on the fire by stimulating demand through grants to first-home buyers. The opposition's current policy on housing seems to be to allow people to access their super, adding more to demand, which will only drive prices up, on average. We use interest rates to manage inflation, which means mortgage holders bear the entire burden of the adjustments we make to our economy. If you own a house outright, changes in interest rates affect you much less.

There are a lot of different levers that people think we should pull to address the housing crisis, both supply and demand: tax reform, building more social housing, limiting Airbnb and foreign buyers, changing zoning rules, incentivising infill, providing protection for renters or linking immigration targets to housing growth. The hard truth is: no matter which levers we pull to get there, success in housing policy would make housing more affordable. This means lowering or at least pausing house prices while wages catch up. No-one who owns a house wants to hear this, but that's the reality.

Sixty-five per cent of dwellings are owned, and 35 per cent are rented, so two-thirds of the population is financially incentivised to favour limiting the supply of houses to increase value. Any genuine attempt to address housing affordability would need to go against the financial interests of 65 per cent of households. This is politically very challenging, and neither major party will say it out loud. But we desperately need a clear direction on housing policy. Does the government want house prices to increase, stay the same or decline? What's the government actually trying to achieve? It's essential that this fundamental question is addressed in the promised National Housing and Homelessness Plan, and, when that plan is ready, before criticising it, the opposition needs to be clear about what alternative it is proposing. Unless we can get a clear answer out of both major parties about how affordable housing should be, we can't pick the right suite of policies to deliver that goal.

Should the average house costs four times the median income like it was 20 years ago or eight times like it is now? How long should it take us to get to this target? If we don't have an affordability target, supply policies will continue to work against policies that drive demand and monetary policy and bank marketing. So I challenge both the government and the opposition to answer one simple question in the lead-up to the next election: how affordable should housing be? This requires courage and long-term thinking, neither of which we've seen much of lately.

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is incredibly frustrating and even distressing to continue to sit through the rank hypocrisy of the Greens political party, particularly the member for Griffith. Their contributions to this very important debate are both cruel and dishonest. They deliberately spread misinformation. They deliberately create expectations amongst vulnerable people, people who are desperately in need of public policy support in order to ensure that they are afforded secure housing. They deliberately create false expectations for these people, based on the spreading of false policy logic. It is the ultimate act of cynicism. It is appalling behaviour.

It is the politicisation of a fundamental public policy challenge in our society purely for the purposes of harvesting votes from vulnerable young people. It is purely based on their interest, their political interest, in harvesting votes from vulnerable young people. The member for Griffith and his Greens party colleagues have no legitimate interest in resolving the housing challenges that our society faces. Anyone listening need only think about where their political interests lie here. There are no votes for them in resolving the housing challenges. Their votes are generated by misleading vulnerable people and creating the false expectation that there is a magic public policy solution to this very, very difficult public policy challenge.

The member for Griffith spends all of his time self-promoting and self-briefing in little weekend spreads in the weekend papers about what a genius he is and what a contribution he's making to saving Australian society. It's utterly pathetic. I say again: it is cruel and it is dishonest. The Greens have sunk to the pathetic lows of Trump-style populism when it comes to dealing with these critical matters. It is so distressing for parts of our community, parts of the community that I represent, who are facing critical housing challenges and for whom those housing challenges spur innumerable additional personal challenges, be they health, family, employment or economic. All that the Greens political party wants to do is score cheap political points based on that human misery. The Greens are a party of populist self-promotion and protest. They take no interest in legitimately addressing this public policy challenge.

The Labor Party is a party of government. Our government—the Albanese Labor government and this Minister for Housing—are relentlessly focused on driving secure housing for every Australian in our society. We accept there are very significant challenges to overcome in order to achieve this ambition. But dishonestly misrepresenting an apathy for further innovation, for further investment, for further pragmatic policy courage, plays no role in the very legitimate public debate that we should be having about addressing these challenges. Others have outlined some of these, but I want to touch on them again.

First and foremost, the housing challenge in Australia will only be solved by addressing the issue of supply. There is no other magic solution to this challenge. We need to build more homes, we need to do it quickly and we need to do it all across our country. It's why we have set a very ambitious target. We're very clear that it's a very ambitious target: 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade, through the Homes for Australia Plan. Our most recent budget included $6.2 billion of new investment to build more homes and to support Australians into secure housing, which brings our total spending in this area since being elected to $32 billion. This includes the single-biggest investment in social and affordable housing— (Time expired)

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

Before I begin, I will note the points of the previous speaker but I also note that personal attacks on the member for Griffith, I think, in the context of this debate are unhelpful when we're trying to have a reasoned conversation, which I'll try to begin now.

It would be great if there were a silver bullet that could fix the housing crisis, but, for young Australians, I think it is the height of cruelty to suggest that simply putting a cap on rents, for example, would instantly make housing affordable or available, any more than telling struggling families that nuclear power will reduce their power bills when it would be decades away.

The housing crisis has been a long time coming, it has a lot of causes, and it will take a lot of policy corrections and time to fix. The crisis is as deep as it is wide, and that's been reflected in the housing forums that I've held in my electorate of Goldstein. Rents are exorbitant, rising by 7.8 per cent a year—more than twice the rate of inflation—and the number of homes available for sale has been steadily falling since 2015. These days, a standard house costs 8.6 times the average disposable household income—twice as much as two decades ago. That means it's taking people an average of 11.4 years to save a 20 per cent deposit. The Australian dream has become a nightmare. It's the same story for renters. Two in five low-income households privately renting are experiencing rental stress.

Then there is the plight of an overlooked cohort affected by successive government's failure—that being older Australians, particularly older women. I often focus on women in this chamber because, as women, we have the odds stacked against us. We're underpaid, undervalued and overlooked in general across society. Older women who've put their careers on hold to raise children often struggle to find jobs when they're deemed 'past their prime'. It's an issue becoming more prevalent as our population ages; 29.1 per cent of our population is now aged over 55, up by close to five percent in the past decade. As a country, we must have a collective reckoning with what this means for our future as an older Australia. There will be more people out of the workforce, with fewer people to support them and increasing numbers of them locked out of the housing market. It's a recipe for resentment.

One in three women have experienced physical and or mental health issues that affected their financial and their housing situations. Older Australians are disproportionately affected, for example, by an inefficient Medicare system that's expensive and makes them worse off financially. This and factors like the gender and super pay gaps make it very difficult for young and older women alike to become financially stable and find suitable housing. The figures tell the tale: 270,000 older people are either homeless, marginally housed or are living in a home they can't afford. This means worse mental and physical health outcomes too.

Goldstein may be a comparatively wealthy electorate but it's not quarantined from the housing crisis. Women in my electorate have been sleeping in cars because of marital breakdown, and often are fleeing domestic violence situations which end in homelessness and housing stress. The housing crisis does not discriminate by postcode or who you are; it's certainly worse for those who are less well off, but it's a problem that extends to every part of the country. I acknowledge the words of the member for Mackellar, and the similar prices that are in effect across my electorate when it comes to buying and renting.

To help mend this crisis we must do several things, including increasing housing supply and making it easier to enter and exit the housing market. Current tax arrangements, like stamp duty, disincentivise moving and also affect labour market flexibility, thereby affecting our economy. I'm increasingly of the view that negative gearing rules should be changed, with perhaps some grandfathering for those who already own investment properties but limited to one investment property in the future. It won't do everything but it will do something to reduce the syndrome of first home buyers being outbid by investors. We should also look at reducing the capital gains tax discount, which analysts like Alan Kohler argue is more responsible than negative gearing for the explosion in prices over the past two decades. There is also the question of swapping stamp duty for land tax, something that would have to be carefully executed and which would require Commonwealth assistance.

I have supported the steps being taken by the government so far—not without reservation. I have not pretended that what has been done so far will fix the problem; we have much more to do.

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

I do find the hypocrisy of what's proposed for matters of public importance to be fascinating. Yesterday, the party that can't cost its own energy thought bubble proposed an MPI on energy costs. And today, the party that has deliberately delayed and frustrated not only significant policies around housing in this place but also at the local level in their own electorates—where they have actively campaigned against social housing developments—now want to talk about housing shortages. When we talk about housing prices and rental costs, we're talking about housing supply—the very thing they have done their level best to hold back. Shame on them!

Basic economics tell us that price and supply are correlated: prices rise when any good or product is in short supply. Meanwhile, the Greens political party—in an unholy alliance with the Liberal-Nationals—have spent their time blocking the very measures that will address supply and which would build large-scale developments of social and affordable housing across the country. They've been lobbying actively, getting up petitions and fighting against actual social and affordable housing developments in their own electorates. So while their social media has them fighting the good fight on housing affordability by yelling at the federal government, the reality is they're doing their very best to block any progress on this measure. They don't what Australians to have homes, they don't want to fix housing supply—what would they campaign on then?

How did we get to where we are? Leaving aside the last decade's absolute lack of focus on housing policy or projects under those opposite, there were a number of recent changes that affected housing supply. We have fewer people per dwelling than previously, driving demand for properties by an additional 140,000 homes. Fewer people per dwelling? How did that happen? Firstly, COVID and changes in post-COVID work practices have also changed the number of people per household, with an increased demand for additional bedrooms to turn into home based offices. Share homes, typically, have fewer people per house to allow for office space to work from home and, generally, there are fewer share homes. People are turning their spare bedrooms into an offices instead of taking in a boarder.

Secondly, a higher divorce rate has meant increasing demand for family homes. Instead of mum, dad and the kids in one home, we now have mum and the kids in one home and dad and the kids in another home—two family homes for a family that used to be in one. I'm not arguing against divorce, I'm simply saying that societal changes are at play here. Then we have barriers to downsizing. Older people wanting to downsize face financial barriers cutting into their buying power, meaning they often stay in larger homes long after the kids have left.

Where else has housing supply gone? Short-term rentals such as Airbnb have taken housing stock out of the rental and residential market and instead placed it in the hotel-motel market. Some local governments and overseas jurisdictions have looked at efforts to curb this, treating Airbnb properties as the businesses they now are, instead of residential properties.

Unlike the Greens, who are campaigning against social housing in our local communities, the Labor government has been getting on with the job of addressing the housing shortage. Last week I was with Minister Collins along with South Australian minister Nick Champion at the launch of yet another social housing development by a community housing provider. This one will build 350 new social and affordable homes at Tonsley under the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator, which will build 4,000 new social rental homes across the country. The week before I was with Minister Matt Keogh at the launch of the first round of funding for veterans' housing under the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund—another housing strategy the Greens delayed while they used it to harvest your contact details via petitions. Since the election, this government has progressed a whole raft of housing bills, policies, funds and projects, despite the best efforts of the Greens political party in their alliance with the Liberals and the Nationals to stop Australians getting into homes.

I'm going to finish on a case in point: our shared-equity scheme. It's yet another policy being opposed by the Greens and Liberals coalition, despite it actually being on the Greens policy manifesto at their last election. That's how desperate they are to stop Labor doing anything about housing so they can continue to campaign about it. They're desperate to stop Australians being able to get into their own homes so they can campaign. If the Greens political party wants to do something meaningful to help Australians on housing, then just get out of the way.

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

Stop, then!

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

Then stop blocking it!

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

The member for Bruce on a point of order.

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

The member needs to address his remarks through the chair rather than ranting abuse with the term 'you'.

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

There's no need to carry on. I mean, it is absolutely true. As is often the case in MPIs, there has been some rather robust debate and interjections. It is true; it is always preferable for you to address your remarks through me so as not to cause personal offence, and I'll remind others to do likewise.

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

The discussion has now concluded.