Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Thanks very much, Mr Acting Deputy President Edwards, and I also acknowledge that you, on behalf of the coalition, played a role in this inquiry that actually traversed, I think, every state and lasted for more than a year. I would like to put on the record, on behalf of the Australian Greens, my thanks to the secretary and staff—particularly to Dr Turner and Dr Kathleen Dermody, and the secretarial staff, without whom we simply cannot do this kind of work.

There are a couple of witnesses who I would also like to specifically acknowledge. Can you imagine being called before a Senate inquiry into an issue that affects as many people as housing affordability does, just after you had had your funding cut, and asked to provide the kind of essential advice and advocacy that you had been doing on a shoestring of a budget. So I particularly acknowledge Carol Croce and Eddy Bourke from the Community Housing Federation of Australia, Adrian Pisarski and all those at National Shelter, and Glenda and her wonderful staff at Homelessness Australia. These are the most eminent experts and compassionate problem-solvers in the country in their field, and they were giving us evidence on what the consequences would be, as Senator McLucas identified in her contribution, of axing their funding. Mr Hockey, having introduced his task force after fobbing the entire country off for more than a year on this inquiry that the federal government was meant to be undertaking, has then shoved it under the rug of the tax white paper and the reform of the Federation. It is as though nobody is going to lift a finger to help people who are homeless or who are suffering skyrocketing rents and basically a generation that has given up on ever being able to own their own home unless we sell a century's worth of disputes over the function and form of the Federation. We had what I thought were constructive contributions from everybody, including coalition senators. While collectively we bring very different perspectives to bear, at least the quality of debate and questions that were put to witnesses were very high. It was extremely disappointing to then see the government minority report effectively dismissing out of hand three-quarters of the recommendations on the basis that it is red tape. If you are so keen on operating the Commonwealth of Australia as though it is a corporation—effectively just sacking people and abolishing things—then go back to the private sector. Government is actually necessary for some things, and it would be very cold comfort for those homeless people in our community who are forced to go through another winter with nothing on the table.

Again, my acknowledgement and thanks go to those witnesses who, despite hearing the fact that they were going to need to wind up those entities I mentioned before, nonetheless had the grace to come and give us the benefit of their advice. We heard from a wide range of experts and practitioners, whether it be academics, advocates or those in the private sector or non-profit organisations, whose job it is to try and provide affordable housing. But a couple in particular came to mind in the West Australian hearing that we conducted. A number of people who are currently experiencing homelessness came and gave evidence to the inquiry for the first time. It was immensely moving, and it is good to see that some of the recommendations that they put forward have been taken up and, I believe, agreed to unanimously. What extraordinary courage and dignity Jonathan Shapiro, Owen, Bevan and Mort brought to the table to tell a bunch of senators and staff, who all had homes to go to after the conclusion of the inquiry, what it is like to actually suffer and experience homelessness. The description they gave is that once you fall off the bottom of the ladder, you suddenly realise that a bunch of the bottom rungs are missing. That is why it is so important that the Commonwealth steps up and accepts its responsibility.

The housing department in my home state of Western Australia has a decent reputation nationally for embedding good programs for homelessness in particular. They have just opened the new Foyer centre in Leederville, which effectively provides a way of getting people who are at risk of homelessness or are actually suffering it, particularly young people, and putting them into a safe environment with a roof over their head and a stable place to live. They then wrap services around them, including job training support and the kind of assistance that people need when they are suffering homelessness. It is devastating to hear from these people directly and realise that the single most important reason why many of them are on the streets is that their homes are not safe; that they are suffering domestic violence or intimate partner violence. It is not good enough for the government to then step back and say: 'No, we are in the business of reducing red tape.' That is one of the reasons why the bottom rungs on the ladder are missing. So thanks go to those individuals who gave evidence, and also a shout out to Nick—good on you for looking after your dad. These people have brought extraordinary dignity to the task, and it is absolutely up to us in this place to listen to them and then to carry out some of the things that they have proposed to us.

What really strikes me is that we have had report after report not just out of this place, but across the affordable housing sector for years, describing the meltdown in the Australian housing market—that there is a crisis. It is something beyond crisis—it is the largest single component of the cost of living, and yet the government seems to pretend that it is really not the Commonwealth's problem, and that the states and territories can fix it up. But they simply do not have a broad enough tax base to do so. That is why we have made some recommendations that go to things like stamp duty and reform of the states' perilously narrow tax base. This is a report that contains answers though, of course, we could not get agreement on everything. We have also submitted some additional comments that propose, for example, that the Commonwealth develop an interest in mandatory standards for affordable housing in particular areas—inclusion rezoning, as it is known. That is something that we believe is essential, and should not have been left out of the majority report.

Similarly, on some of the comments that Senator McLucas made about tax, we have to finally confront the elephant in the room. I think it is quite positive that Mr Bowen, on behalf of the opposition, has indeed taken a tentative entree into the debate on behalf of the Australian Labor Party on those tax measures that tilt the housing market in favour of investors and substantially and systematically disadvantage first home buyers. There is no question at all that first home buyers are being priced out of the market by housing investors who are supported by incredibly generous tax breaks, including negative gearing and capital gains tax exemptions.

They should not be controversial. Mr Hockey, without even contemplating it, did not ask Treasury to do any modelling. Treasury told us they did not know what these tax breaks cost the taxpayer. However, we are fortunate that others and independent analysts have developed some models, and collectively it costs taxpayers billions of dollars. Recommendations that were supported by the coalition senators, and these are the areas that we would look forward to working with you in the brief time you have left in government, include things like the regeneration of urban corridors—that is, rather than considering that new housing supply always has to be on the fringe, and that the only affordable housing that we can provide for people needs to be dozens of kilometres away from jobs and schools and public transport. I am delighted that the coalition senators supported that recommendation. Housing supply bonds was another; supporting the possibility of a specialised instrument to get institutional investors into the affordable housing space. We think that that is an extremely productive idea, and a lot of work has been done on that. There are a number of other recommendations the coalition senators supported. We are very disappointed that you did not come and join the majority report, but I thank you on behalf of the Australian Greens for at least identifying the areas where you are amenable to working with the crossbenches and the opposition.

The reason why I point out that it is absolutely essential that we deal with the elephant in the room, which is the tax concessions, is simply, I think, a very powerful set of arguments around inequality in Australia: the fact that the top 20 per cent of people have five times more income than the bottom 20 per cent and we have an income tax system that is designed to offset that. We have a progressive income tax system to deal with that fivefold imbalance between the top 20 per cent of Australians and the bottom 20 per cent. But the fact is the top 20 per cent hold 71 times more wealth, and that is because wealth is so generously concessionally dealt with under our tax system that we are taking human shelter, which is a human right, and converting it into just another asset class, and that is what is manifest in this extraordinary concentration of wealth in the Australian community. I do not think it is part of the Australian culture to do so, and it is something that we think, on budget night in particular, there could have been some good news about for people suffering skyrocketing rents and people who have just about given up on buying their own home and, most significantly, people tonight who have nowhere to go. Those are the people that we will be letting down tonight if we refuse to take on these issues head-on, and the Greens are ready to negotiate with anybody in that regard.