Senate debates
Monday, 14 October 2019
Bills
National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2019; Second Reading
12:17 pm
Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source
There's a simple rule about housing that was set down by Saul Eslake. He said, 'Anything that allows people to spend more on housing than they otherwise would has one effect and one effect only: people spend more money on housing than they otherwise would.' That's what the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2019 does. This bill will continue to inflate house prices beyond the reach of young Australians and add to the unearned pool of wealth for those who were fortunate enough to have already bought a property.
The answer to the problem of affordable housing is not to induce more demand, like this bill will do. The property bubble is reinflating now—despite a short hiatus—because, at the insistence of the Treasurer, credit rules have again been relaxed. That means there are more people at an auction with a bigger wad of debt approved standing ready to buy the same house. The property bubble is reinflating now because we continue with measures that give huge taxpayer funded handouts to developers and landlords at the expense of schools and hospitals—handouts like negative gearing and the capital gains tax concessions baked into our tax system, which make it easier to buy your third or fourth house rather than your first. So the big winners of this policy are the big banks and property owners. The losers are young people trying to get into the property market. And, of course, we all suffer when there's long-term financial instability.
What this bill will do is increase Australia's record-high personal debt of almost 130 per cent of GDP, which is one of the highest in the world. People can't save up for a deposit right now, because property is so overvalued in this country. The government covering the 15 per cent gap needed for a 20 per cent deposit will simply bring more people in to buy the same number of houses. That has one effect and one effect only, and you've guessed it: it means pushing up house prices even further. That means marginalising an even bigger group of young people than this policy would actively help to own their own home.
We keep hearing about it—we hear about it in this place too—that what we have to address is the issue of supply. Both sides of this chamber are holding out hope that the private sector will build so much supply that it will depress prices. Just think about that for a moment. You are hoping that developers will intentionally deflate prices and cut their own profits. Why on earth would they do that? They won't and they never will. Yes, part of the answer is supply, but it's supply driven by government investment. We need half a million new, publicly-built homes over the decade to meet the crisis—the lack of affordable housing. It's what the experts at the front line of the housing crisis are telling us. It's what many economists are telling us right now. Of course, that was the policy the Greens took to the last election.
We can afford to build these public assets. Don't for a moment be lied to by a government that refuses to invest in essential public infrastructure, because investing in public housing is a damn sight cheaper than the $325 billion of tax cuts that this government has passed, both before and since the election. And it would be a hell of a lot more productive as well. When you lower housing costs, people spend more in their economy. They spend more on productive assets rather than on property, which currently dominates their spending. Of course, we know that finance has never been cheaper for us to build a new, fairer, more decent society, an investment that will bring a financial and social return.
Creating this pipeline of crucial public infrastructure is what will help people on housing waiting lists. It will help the people who need community housing and, of course, the entire generation of young people who are currently locked out of the housing market. Let's not forget that over 100,000 people don't have somewhere to sleep tonight. Where is the government's action on the over 100,000 people who, on any given night, have nowhere to sleep? Of course we know that the people who are doing it toughest in this country aren't in the position to host a secret fundraising dinner for the major parties or offer post-ministerial employment, so they get forgotten. They're left to fend for themselves. We see a government creating a dog-eat-dog society where, if you're well-off, good for you, but if you need support, you're on your own. This bill doesn't even tinker at the edges of this crisis that stretches across society and across generations. It's a piece of legislation that is regressive and counterproductive. It's legislation that will push up prices further by artificially inducing demand, just like negative gearing and capital gains tax do for property investors.
I'll make this point again: we currently live in a nation that makes it easier for people to buy their third or fourth or fifth house than to buy their first. There are parallels with this government's approach to the climate crisis, where, rather than acknowledging that we have a problem and rather than understanding what the solutions to that problem look like, the government keeps finding new fuel to pour on the fire. We know that it'll be up to future governments and to future generations to put these fires out and to clean up the mess that's left behind.
We know why this policy is here. We know why we're debating it right now. In the heat of an election campaign, where a government refused to tackle the great challenges that face our country, we saw a spontaneous announcement thought up on the back of an envelope and dropped in the heat of an election campaign to put pressure on the opposition. Of course, in a rush to look just like the Liberal Party, the Labor Party supported it before the day was out, even though many of them, I know, because I've spoken to them, understood in their heart of hearts that this was bad public policy.
So my challenge to the Labor Party is to not take on the government by becoming like the government. Take a stand and make it clear that you stand for something different—something better, something fairer. Rather than supporting the billions of dollars in tax cuts, as you have been doing, and ensuring that one of the most regressive pieces of legislation passes this parliament, how about supporting the Greens' plan for massive investment in public housing to create half a million affordable homes and the investment that will flow from that as a result of the jobs that we can create in the construction industry? This will ensure that there is not one person in this country who's sleeping rough tonight and that a whole generation of young people benefit from the same opportunities that this generation has been able to enjoy.
This is the generation of politicians that got cheap housing, free education, affordable health care and a safe and stable climate. The challenge for us in this parliament is to make life better, not harder, for those young people who follow us. Instead, what we have is a policy that continues to screw young people over and make life harder for those people who struggle to find secure housing. Of course, the tragedy of this bill is not just that it does not address the crisis in affordable housing in Australia; it's that it make it worse. It's inflationary. It will make it harder for young people to afford their own homes. It gives no-one who's sleeping rough tonight the support that they need. That's why the Greens will be opposing this poor piece of public policy, and we hope the Labor Party will change their minds and join with us in opposing more legislation that screws over young people.
No comments