Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This debate on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related legislation is an important opportunity for the chamber to consider a housing policy of the government. This is a housing policy that is designed, by the government for vested interests, to send more and more taxpayer funds to the people who need it the least, and that is the major donors and benefactors of the Labor Party. In particular, I want to single out the super funds, because they of course will be one of the major beneficiaries of this scheme.

The reason I call the government 'the government for vested interests' is that it is only able to get out of bed every day if it has something that it really wants to do for the unions or the big super funds. The idea that it's working for the typical worker is absolutely laughable. Every day we see the same old laundry list of issues—pattern bargaining, the abolition of labour hire, the covering up of payments from super funds to unions, and the transferring of more taxpayer support to super funds so they can own all the houses in Australia and then people can rent them back like serfs. Basically, every single policy of the government is infected with this disease. When you go into a street in any town or city in Australia, I think you will find that people are worried about mortgage costs. They're worried about rent costs. The government's priority to legislate the objective of superannuation is a good example of the government's vested interest because it is a twisted agenda. When you only see things through the commercial prism of your major donors and benefactors, you act in this way.

This bill is another example of this twisted approach to governing. It's not a government for all Australians; it's a government for vested interests. These are serious matters. I think the Darryl Kerrigan equation here is very apt and very good. Of course we want to see Australians be able to access a home. It is a key determinant as to whether or not a person will have a successful retirement. The reality is that, if you are a retired renter, you are going to have a more difficult retirement, so finding ways for people to get into the first-home market is important. It's also important that we do find ways to support renters. There are a lot of renters in Australia, and many people are happy renting, so we should have policies for prospective homebuyers, for homeowners—even when the bank owns most of their home—and to support renters.

Now, in relation to the housing problem we have, people are aware of the major problem the country has, which is a problem of supply. There have been many inquiries and many investigations. There have been many economic assessments done. It does come down to supply, and supply is particularly problematic when you are running a large migration program. Now, we have always competed for people and for capital, and I hope that we always will and that we will always be a country that supports migration. But we need to be a country that builds houses, and the most recent parliamentary enquiry, which did a deep dive—to use that dreadful Americanism—into housing was the House tax and revenue committee in the last parliament, which was chaired by Mr Jason Falinski. That recommended some quite clean and clear measures that could be adopted by governments. Recommendation 3 of that committee was:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government should institute a grant scheme that pays states and localities for delivering more housing supply and affordable housing.

That's quite a good recommendation.

The Centre for Independent Studies has done some further investigation of these types of schemes and has looked into parts of the United States where there are incentives for localities which release more supply, release more land and also consider denser housing. Now, I understand the problem of nimbyism. It is very politically difficult for some people, but there are parts of our cities where more density is going to be essential if we are to meet the supply needs, because we are a highly urbanised population. Sure, there are many Australians who live in the bush and the regions, and I grew up in a regional community myself, but most Australians live in cities, and our cities are too spread out. The scourge of nimbyism is, I have to say, alive and well. It is a bipartisan problem. It is a wretched problem, and I believe that the national government is perhaps the only institution capable of solving it. I say that because I think that the national government can incentivise the states and local governments to act in the interests of the ratepayers and the taxpayers, who ultimately will need to see more dwellings built and for there to be more density.

That was a central model of an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, chaired by Jason Falinski, from just a couple of years ago. That inquiry cited the precedent of the National Competition Policy, which made payments to states for doing the right thing when it came to competition policy. We, the Liberal Party, are a federalist party. States have different approaches, and we respect that. Some states have more competitive, more dynamic economies; others have a greater concentration of state owned enterprises. That is something on which those individuals who live in those states can make a judgement about whether they come or whether they leave. Ultimately, I think this is where we will get to on housing—that states and localities which fail to deliver on housing will be less attractive places to live. That is a wretched problem on the supply side.

On the demand side—I referenced this in my opening comments—the government wants to enact this housing policy to provide tax incentives to super funds. The President of the Labor Party, Mr Swan, who is also the chairman of a big super fund, announced late last year that the Cbus Super fund would give $500 million of members' money to the HAFF scheme. According to documents released under freedom of information, we discovered that, whilst Mr Swan was promising $500 million of members' money, the Cbus fund was providing submissions to the Treasury department saying that the design of the HAFF scheme was fundamentally flawed and not appropriate for long-term investors.

This illustrates the massive conflict with the Labor Party's policy development. Their policies are not designed for people; they're designed for major institutions. The Cbus example, I think, is a very fine example. Of course, Cbus transfers $3 million or $4 million each and every year to the CFMMEU through inflated directors' fees. These figures are known because of AEC, Australian Electoral Commission, disclosures. believe there is a major conflict here, and it has been illustrated in this bill. Why would funds which already receive compulsorily $100 billion a year in mandatory contributions need further tax breaks? I mean, are we seriously saying that we want to have a system where super funds, which already receive over $100 billion a year in compulsory contributions, need more of our money through tax incentives?

The scheme is build to rent, so the funds will then own all the houses and would then rent the houses, apartments or flats back to people. So you would have a system where you totally overturn the notion of people owning a home. The super fund has your money because the government passed a law that says that you're not allowed to have all your money—it's got to go off to a super fund so they can charge high fees on it and send money off to banks and unions—and then, separately, they're also going to own your house. So we're living in a world that maybe Superman would have recognised—LexCorp or something—where basically four or five major super funds have all your money and they have your house. I think the facilitation of this idea is very dangerous.

I think the Cbus example is pertinent to the discussion. Why would the chairman of the fund, who's also the chairman of the Labor Party, be rushing out of the gates to commit $500 million of the members' money whilst we know that behind the scenes they had major reservations about the scheme's design? The FOI documents document in detail that the Cbus fund thought that it wasn't a good idea to design it this way. We are where we are. The government want to proceed with this particular bill after a protracted negotiation, as is their right.

This bill will do very little for first home buyers because first home buyers are facing a structural problem here, particularly millennials and zoomers. It is harder than ever to gather a deposit, and 10 or 11 per cent of people's money is now being sent off to these super funds—back to the super funds again—therefore, the task of pulling together a deposit is so much harder as a result. Any honest economist would say that turning that around is not on its own an entirely credible solution. It will definitely help some people if they can use their own money to buy a home. It won't be a silver bullet. We will still need to deal with the supply issue. The key policy solution that has been recommended by recent inquiries is that the Commonwealth would look to incentivise the states and local governments to release more land and to provide more density. Ultimately, that is the supply which is needed.

I certainly understand that there is a need for social housing—and we've always supported the role that social housing plays in our society—but most Australians have aspiration to own their own home, and the long-running, structural problem we now have is that millennials and gen Z's are very unlikely in some cases to ever get access to a first home. That has a cascading set of problems for that generation as they get older, because the way that the tax and social security systems work in this country, if you don't own a house and you are in retirement, you are going to have a much more difficult time than you otherwise would. Therefore, the key point here is that we should be doing everything we can to promote first home ownership—not ownership of all the houses by big super funds but ownership by the people. Everyone agrees that Darryl Kerrigan was absolutely accurate when he described a house as more than a home. That is why we have always believed in homeownership, because it has more than just a financial benefit. But the financial benefit can never be underestimated while we have a tax and social security system which discriminates in favour of homeowners. That is the reality. By giving up on housing policy—which is what this bill does—the government has decided to give up on millennials and gen Z 's and he is saying to them: 'Forget about ever having a house. The best thing we can do is to have the superfund own your house and rent it back to you like you're a serf.' I think it is a very disappointing outcome and will be voting against this bill.