Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Next is:

… a ban on sale of premises evictions;

This means if next month you suffer the 13th interest rate rise since the Albanese Labor government came into power and you can't afford the repayments on the property and need to sell it, you can't ask the tenant to leave so you can do that. You have to sell the property with the tenant in place and hope that you can manage that with them whilst you also manage the stress of not being able to afford your loan repayments. Finally, there's:

… any other matters set out in the designated housing agreement.

We don't have enough time to go through that.

As noted by Senator Bilyk, that there is clear evidence of rent caps and freezes making housing markets much worse, further perpetuating the problem. Ironically, Senator Faruqi raised New York, the most expensive housing market in the world, as a shining example of rent caps and rent freezes. I am confused. At the public hearing in Melbourne, Mr Coates from the Grattan Institute had this to say:

With rent controls in that way, there are a few things that happen. One is that you risk reducing the quality and quantity of housing that's made available in the long term. Secondly, you generate a misallocation of the housing stock that means you need much more housing in order to provide the same level of housing to each member of the community. So, in a world where you have strict rent controls, where people are not required to bear the full cost in the long term of what that housing is actually worth, they will hoard it; they will live in a home that's got two extra spare bedrooms or three extra spare bedrooms. This tends to have generational effects, where those that are around when the rent control is first established do very well and those that come in future generations—say, younger families looking for a property—

I am somewhat stunned, as I alluded to in the beginning of my contribution, that the Greens are moving this bill whilst we are in the middle of a Senate inquiry into the very same topic—an inquiry one of their senators is leading and chairing—before the committee has reported back to the Senate with its findings. Is there something that they are worried about? Perhaps the inquiry they have called won't yield the results they want.

This bill from the Greens demonstrates a complete and utter detachment from reality and a lack of understanding of the commercial practicalities of the housing system and the private rental system and the damage the bill would cause. There is little doubt that the implementation of the measures contained within this bill would drive Australian mum-and-dad investors out of the rental market and open the door to institutional investors, further depleting homeownership by Australians. Let's think about that. The Greens want to drive the opportunity of homeownership away from individuals and redirect that opportunity to institutional investors, and they don't care if these institutional investors are domestic or foreign owned. We definitely don't need foreign institutional landlords in the place of mum-and-dad Australian investors. The Greens are happy as long as we entrench Australians into being tenants, rather providing opportunities for them to become homeowners.

I'd hoped that we'd left some of these Stalinist policies like this one back in the 1950s, but, no, the Greens obsession with ultraprogressive regressionism doesn't stop with item 5. Item 6, as outlined in the bill's explanatory memorandum, is a measure called for in the 1937 Royal Commission into Monetary and Banking Systems. 1937—I actually doublechecked in case there was a typo! The Greens are invoking a 1937 royal commission in their explanatory memorandum in 2023, some 83 years later. We have come so far with so many changes to the banking and monetary system in Australia since then, such as the internet, online banking and globalisation, but clearly we haven't come far enough that the 1937 royal commission is now a timeless document. I thank the Greens for bringing it to my attention and to the attention of the Senate once again! I'm sure that I speak for all senators here today when I say that the 1937 Royal Commission into Monetary and Banking Systems should be at the forefront of our deliberations when it comes to managing banking policy!

Forgive my descent into sarcasm, but I'm really annoyed by this bill. Why? Because, again, a committee that I sit on as a senator in this chamber has spent public money and has spent Senate time to set up an inquiry and public hearings across this country during a cost-of-living crisis at the behest of the Greens and now the Greens don't wish to wait a few weeks for the outcome of that process.

But I'm sure that the Greens know, like their colleague, Senator Rice, whom I sit on the Community Affairs References Committee with—the only committee that the Greens chair—that I am very passionate about housing. I do commend the Greens for worrying about renters' rights and the imbalance that sometimes occur between those that own and those that rent. And it made me think about how many people in this chamber are in tune and understand the importance and benefits of homeownership, particularly into retirement.

I spent some two decades helping people plan and achieve their goals of owning their own homes, setting up financial security for themselves and their families, and I know that the senators sponsoring this bill also know these benefits. But, on doing a little bit of research, I quickly discovered that both Senator McKim and Senator Faruqi each own four properties. Yes, you heard me correctly. Four properties each! This includes residential property, a holiday home—which I'm sure is very lovely—and some investment properties.

I know what you are thinking, Acting Deputy President: why would such fierce advocates for renters own so many properties directly contributing to the housing crisis? Well, that's not for me to answer but leads directly to the main issue that nobody in the Greens is talking about, and that is supply. This is not just a rental crisis or a housing crisis but a homeownership crisis, and this crisis has many moving parts to it, not the least of which is the current cost-of-living crisis, which has seen the cost of new supply soar as inflation has gone unmanaged.

Another factor to this issue of supply is the prolific nimbyism of necessary and sustainable development in metropolitan areas, with councils, particularly in New South Wales, being the most prolific. Which councils are they? Green councils. And it's not just a problem in New South Wales; it is also a problem in the federal seat of Griffith, home to some of the Brisbane's wealthiest residents. In April of this year, the AFR reported that the Greens housing spokesperson, the member for Griffith, opposed the development of 1,300 new homes in his electorate. We need to build more homes. We have a supply crisis, and they need to be in everyone's backyard. This is a collective responsibility.