Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is late at night on a Tuesday. We are here. A lot of people are a bit tired, not a lot of energy in the room, but I am buzzing. I love a good love story. Who doesn't love a good love story? We have a beautiful moment here. The Greens and the Labor Party together again is a beautiful thing to see. I'm sure, just like the great relationships in history—you know, Donald and Ivanka, Sonny and Cher, David Lee Roth and the Van Halen brothers—nothing will break this up. You can hear the love tonight, the mutual respect between both these parties talking about how great it is to be working each other again—nothing will go wrong here.

But as we look at this, let's get down to what really is happening here. It seems the Greens may be a cheaper date than they really say. We heard the talking points of $3 billion being added to housing as part of the deal but, let's face it, Labor came to the table with $2 billion of that a long time ago. So let's get down to it. The deal is a billion bucks. That's it. That is what we have sold out for—a billion bucks. They were already doing $2 billion of that themselves, but we got $1 billion. Let's not tell anyone that is what we sold out for. We got three, that is a story and I don't want to disrupt that. That is the price we've got. That is where we're going here.

But what do we get for the rest of it? We've already heard one partner in the marriage talking about the rest being a crapshoot. The rest is what we get out of the future fund. What will we bet on? What will we get? How much money to go into this is guaranteed from that in the future? Don't get me wrong, we get the need; everybody is standing up and talking about those doing it rough, those not in beds tonight—those around the world. We understand that. There's a great power out there which is ready to build more houses: private enterprise. Take the reins off these guys and they will get that to you—

An honourable senator: Urgh!

I heard an 'urgh'! I think that could almost be unparliamentary! Let's get down to the property developers. The Greens over there in that corner have done everything they possibly could there. There will be people in council meetings across Australia today who see a development application and say, 'No, you can't build that block, or those units, because there's a cross-eyed cockroach or a left-handed dandelion somewhere near it!' These are the things that go on.

The greatest threat to housing is supply, and I get that; that's why we have to build new homes. But the money here tonight won't build new homes. There will be a two-year planning period while they um and ah. This is what's going to go on, because of the people in that corner over there. The same people who are saying that we need lower rents, or that we need this or that, are the ones who are out there saying that we can't build it! That's the truth of the situation. When I was going through the bill, I was afraid that this new money—the $3 billion that they managed to get—might actually just go into replacing stuff which had already been DA approved to get some quick results. But tonight I saw that requirement for 100 per cent accessible buildings. This is all new DA stuff which will have to be planned and lodged. They'll have to do all this. Nothing here tonight will be built for years because of what has happened.

I'll say this: don't use property developers as a bad word. If you live in a housing development or you live in a block of units, it's the developers who got around and did it. Don't take the money from them, there's all that sort of stuff in that. But we need more of them to get out there and they need quicker approvals. The stories I'm hearing now are that getting approvals and setting aside the capital, and the holding costs of everything while still going through lodgement, sometimes costs more than the raw land itself. It's taking longer and doing it is longer. We've made it so hard to build houses that people aren't building houses. It isn't hard to understand. If something is in the right zone and is a compliant development then let's get these things through.

It is supply, and these people are not bad people. They'll use their money—they'll put their risk capital in—to build the housing that this nation needs if you get out of their way. But they can't, because you know better than everyone. You know better than the people over there and you know better than the people who are putting their money up to build these things. This funding has got through. You held out for a lot more and sold a lot cheaper, but nothing will happen because of the rules that your people on the ground put around development and around all of the things that need to happen.

Australia is not a country that lacks land; we've got a tonne of it for our population. If we look at Canada, it has a lot of land. And across the border from Canada is America, where you can get the same house, five minutes drive away, for half the price. Why? Because they allow development and because they allow free enterprise to get on with the job. The answers that we have at the federal level don't get down to the state; I get that, and I respect the Constitution and the separation of powers. I respect that we can do what we can here, and I think it's a good situation. What the government can do with the infrastructure grants and funding to cities and local governments—all these sorts of things—is to tie those grants. Imagine if we had a process where we could make any local or state government improve the housing supply by a percentage factor to qualify for these grants? Imagine if we said: 'If you want your road or drainage funding then increase your available housing supply. Increase the blocks and lots.' There's money out there to do it. If those who think the government is the answer to doing everything aren't drinking their bathwater then they're certainly sucking the washer. This is money going into something to replace something, because there's a sense that government has to be in the centre of everything. It doesn't. This is a lack of housing that has been caused by government.