Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased in the very short time that I have to finish my contribution by again explaining to those watching that what we have seen in this chamber every single day this week is the Greens political party teaming up with the Liberal Party, the National Party and, today, One Nation to block and filibuster this bill to make sure that we don't vote on affordable and social housing. This is a bill that will provide 30,000 homes, affordable and social housing, something that we know people desperately need. This is what we have seen every single day this week—teaming up to stop this bill with the Liberal and National parties. That's what we've seen from the Greens.

The only thing, in continuing to play these political games, that can be said about the Greens political party is that they have come in here and are betraying the very real people that they supposedly come here to represent, because that is the only explanation of what they are doing and the behaviour they are displaying in this chamber and throughout this house in blocking this important legislation. In doing so, they are sitting with the very people who made sure that for over a decade we had no investment in affordable and social housing.

It is clear where they stand. It is clear that the Greens party want to make sure that in sitting with the Liberal and National parties we block this bill. But in doing that, they are also standing in the way of 30,000 affordable and social homes, funding for domestic violence homes, funding for families that are leaving domestic violence, $100 million of Indigenous remote housing repairs, and housing for veterans. Those are the people that the Greens Party are turning their backs on, and they're choosing to make sure that this is an issue where it is very clear where the Labor Party stands. They don't want to even go to a vote on this bill. (Time expired)

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to put some facts on the record in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and what is being proposed. There is a lot being said about this bill, the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, in the public sphere, but it is important that everyone understands what is actually proposed in this bill. What is proposed is that the government goes out today and borrows $10 billion, then gives that $10 billion to the Future Fund to invest—not in housing, but just to invest. It could invest in shares—Australian shares, international shares, government bonds here and overseas et cetera—and then the return from those investments, up to a particular cap, would be invested in housing. Does anyone see any problem with that?

The obvious problem is what happens after you borrow $10 billion at, say, four per cent interest, because we're in a high inflationary environment, then the Future Fund tries to invest that money to generate a return. There will only be money going into housing, and all of the laudable goals which have been referred to by the Labor Party, if that fund generates a positive return. In a high inflationary, economically difficult environment, one would have thought the risk that that return won't be generated to enable investment in social housing is heightened. Thus, you could get the perverse outcome that, when social housing is most needed, your investment in the housing fund, in shares, bonds et cetera, is low and doesn't produce the return to enable you to invest in the social housing you desperately need at that point in time. That's the perversity, from a policy perspective, of what's being proposed.

The government has the option now to, say, borrow—everything the government does now is based on borrowings—$500 million today, rather than $10 billion, issue that money in grants and get houses start being built today. They could do that now. But what they're proposing is to borrow $10 billion, give it to the Future Fund to invest in shares, international equities, domestic equities, bonds et cetera, and then only the return from that investment will go into housing. Why? Why are they proposing this?

If you want to know the dangers of it, all you need to do is look at the Future Fund's annual report 2021-22. The Future Fund is the fund which will be investing this $10 billion in shares, international equities et cetera. What happened to the returns in the Future Fund in the period up to 30 June 2022? All you need to do is have a look at the report from the chairman in the foreword. This is what he says:

In a year in which global equities and global bonds fell by more than 10% each and where the Australian stock market fell 6.5%, the return of -1.2% was a pleasing outcome.

In the period up to 30 June 2022, if that $10 billion had been borrowed by the government and given to the Future Fund, which then went out and invested it in domestic shares, international shares, bonds et cetera, its pleasing outcome would have been a minus 1.2 per cent return, not even taking into account inflation. It would have gone backwards, and, at the same time, you would have had to pay interest on the borrowings. No houses. Increased debt. Increased interest payments. None of those laudable goals achieved. That's why those opposite are opposing this piece of legislation.

With due respect, I've heard the Greens put forward the same argument with respect to the non sequitur that goes to the heart of what is being proposed. You're borrowing $10 billion today to invest it in shares, in a very difficult economic environment, and only if it generates a return will anything be invested in housing. That doesn't make sense. Look at the minus 1.2 per cent for the Future Fund for 30 June 2022. The Future Fund also invests in other future funds in relation to a range of areas. What were those results? The Medical Research Future Fund delivered a return of 0.1 per cent per annum in 2021-22. Say there's a bond issue that finished yesterday at 3.25 per cent interest. If you borrow $10 billion at 3.25 per cent interest, that's $325 million interest a year and then you generate a 0.1 per cent return on the $10 billion, which doesn't go anywhere near to covering your interest and so there's nothing that goes into housing. You're actually going backwards. The pool of funds to invest is going backwards; it's diminishing.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund returned negative 0.2 per cent for the year. The Future Drought Fund and the Emergency Response Fund delivered returns of negative 0.2 per cent per annum and negative 0.1 per cent per annum. The DisabilityCare Australia Fund delivered an annual return of negative 0.4 per cent. So they all went backwards. Every single fund which the Future Fund managed, for the period up to 30 June 2022, went backwards. They had a negative return. Plus, you've got to pay the interest on the $10 billion of debt which you borrowed up-front. Does it make sense to you?

Instead of borrowing $10 billion, you could arguably borrow $500 million today, and invest that $500 million directly into housing. Isn't that a better idea? And yet those opposite are wedded to this proposal of the $10 billion big sugar hit. What is this about? When you put forward that logic it seems pretty straightforward to me—based on fiscal policy, based on economics policy, based upon risk management and cost-benefit return—that what the government should be doing is working out how much it wants to invest today, in terms of those laudable housing goals, and actually borrowing that amount to be spent today. That makes sense. But they're not doing it. They want the big hit of being able to say, '$10 billion housing fund,' as if $10 billion is going to be invested today in housing.

What I've just outlined demonstrates conclusively that you may get nothing invested in housing because it all depends upon the return in the markets and, even worse, you may go backwards. So you borrowed an extra $10 billion. That's inflationary. That puts upward pressure on interest rates. It necessarily has to put upward pressure on interest rates because you're going out into the market and borrowing $10 billion instead of $500 million. So you've got to find extra homes for that money. You've got to find people who are prepared to bid into that bond issue and take the $10 billion instead of the $500 million. So, potentially, you've got to make it more attractive for them. They've got greater leverage. Supply and demand—it's basic economics. It puts upward pressure on interest rates. Then, at the end of this process, you might not have a single dollar to actually invest into a social housing project—not a single dollar. It doesn't make any sense at all.

That basic lack of logic, going to the heart of what is proposed by the government, has not been explained by any of those sitting opposite. All we hear, as you heard from Senator Green before I rose to my feet, are passionate and, no doubt, good faith assertions that we've got to do this today in order to provide homes to worthy people in the community who need housing. There is a chronic shortage of housing in this country at the moment. There's no question about that. But there's no explanation as to why this is the right model when the government could go out today and borrow, say, $500 million or $1 billion instead of $10 billion and immediately invest that money into housing and not put that investment in housing at risk that the Future Fund will not get returns on the markets when it invests the proposed $10 billion. That lack of logic that goes to the heart of what is proposed by the government has not been explained.

There's been much toing and froing between the Greens and the Labor Party and we've sat back, we've eaten our popcorn and watched the show this morning. But in terms of delivering policy results on the ground for those who need that social housing—women and children escaping terrible domestic violence, veterans, the elderly—there is no explanation as to why the government doesn't take the more prudent approach, which I think ticks all the boxes. It's not as inflationary, it doesn't put as much upward pressure on interest rates and there's more certainty with respect to the delivery of social housing in a more timely manner. There's no explanation as to why that can't occur. Analysis has been undertaken. What would have happened if this legislation had been passed in the month after the new government got elected? Based on those current statistics, in terms of the future fund, there would have been a loss of approximately $370 million on that $10 billion, a loss, when in fact the government could borrow a more prudent and modest but still substantial amount—$500 million, a billion dollars—and invest that in social housing today. That is not what is proposed.

It's very, very important that the people of Australia understand what is being proposed by the government today. It is not a situation where the government is proposing to put $10 billion directly into housing today. The government is proposing to borrow $10 billion and get the future fund to invest that $10 billion in the share market, the international share market, or government bonds, equities, private equity, whatever it is; and then only the returns from that $10 billion will go into providing housing. That's the risk, and that goes to the core of the objection that the coalition has with respect to this policy.

In my remaining time to speak, I want to correct the record. Those opposite, now they are on the government benches, are fond of saying that the previous government did nothing in its nine years in government in relation to anything. I just want to put on the record, in the time I've got available to me, our initiatives with respect to housing when we were in government. The coalition's housing policies supported more than 300,000 Australians to purchase a home. We supported more than 21,000 social and affordable homes through the establishment of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. There were 21,000 social and affordable homes supported by the coalition government through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. After nine months in office the government haven't built one; they haven't contributed to one. In nine years of government we contributed to 21,000 social and affordable housing units.

Under the coalition, the number of first home buyers reached its highest level for nearly 15 years—a record number in nearly 15 years. It went from approximately 100,000 a year, when we came to office, to nearly 180,000 in our last year in government. An extra 80,000 Australians became first home owners during our last term of government—a fantastic result. In addition, the National Housing Infrastructure Facility established a $1 billion perpetual facility to finance critical housing-related infrastructure to speed up the supply of new housing through the provision of loans and grants and through making investments. We also established the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, providing cheaper and longer-term finance to registered community housing providers.

The National Housing Infrastructure Facility was a landmark coalition achievement, with $2.9 billion of low-cost loans to community housing providers for 15,000 social and affordable dwellings, saving $470 million in interest payments which could then be reinvested in affordable housing. We unlocked 6,900 social, affordable and market dwellings through our $1 billion infrastructure facility and we supported more than 60,000 first home buyers through the home guarantee schemes—and I've personally spoken to people who took advantage of the Home Guarantee Scheme to buy their first home. We protected the residential construction industry, with more than 137,000 HomeBuilder applications. Lastly, through our First Home Super Saver Scheme, we helped 27,600 first home buyers accelerate their deposit savings through super. They were typically young Australians who could access their super—because, after all, it's their money—and then invest that to pay for their deposit on, invariably, their first home.

That's the roll call of achievement of the coalition government. If those opposite want to get up and say the coalition government did nothing, those listening to the debate should compare those comments with the actual facts on the record.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I say the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills introduce a seriously flawed concept—many flawed concepts. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill establishes the Housing Australia Future Fund to make funds available for Housing Australia to make grants and loans in relation to acute housing needs, social housing or affordable housing—more bureaucracy. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 renames the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to Housing Australia—more bureaucracy. This is a clear difference between the Liberal and Labor parties. The Liberal Party name their reckless, wasteful market interventions as corporations. The Labor Party give their reckless, wasteful market interventions grander names. 'Housing Australia' sounds so big, so comforting and so reassuring, yet it falsely implies the Prime Minister has the housing crisis sorted when he is way off target. He's making it worse.

Prime Minister Albanese's solution is not to slow down the obscene level of immigration pouring into cities without homes for people to occupy. His solution is not to address foreign investors buying and locking up new homes so they can be sold as brand-new in a few years' time when values increase. His solution is not to address short-term rentals pushing the long-term rentals out of the housing market. No, his solution is an investment fund that will make no noticeable improvement to the housing crisis.

Here's the data around that. The Australian Bureau of Statistics puts the number of Australian dwellings at 10 million. This bill pretends to add 30,000 new dwellings, or a 0.3 per cent increase. The total value of Australian dwellings is just under $10 trillion. We need as much as $1 trillion worth of new housing by 2030 to meet the needs of everyday Australians, including migrants. This government is offering $2.5 billion. That's 0.025 per cent.

The government can't build enough homes to fix this. Only private enterprise can meet Australia's needs. What created this mess? Red tape, green tape and blue tape created this mess, and high interest rates from a flawed Reserve Bank strategy and inflation from bad government management created the mess. The only thing that will work is getting government out of the way and letting free enterprise fix this mess. Anything else is dishonesty—reckless dishonesty. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill is dishonest. Not only does this bill not solve the housing problem for people who are already here; it does not solve the housing problems for the millions that will arrive by 2030. Either that Albanese government is deliberately misrepresenting the outcome of the bill or there is more here than the paperwork suggests.

Let's see what else we have here. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 streamlines the functions of Housing Australia—oddly, by making it bigger—establishes an annual review mechanism for the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and extends the Commonwealth guarantee of the liabilities of Housing Australia to apply to contracts entered into until 30 June 2028. This last one is interesting. In Queensland a number of construction companies have gone broke recently. The main reason is that, thanks to the government, we have high inflation and home builders use fixed-price contracts. The last thing you want in a fixed-price contract is high inflation taking the profit margin and pushing the builder into a loss on every home they build. Who is going to build the homes now that private enterprise can no longer shoulder their fair share of the burden? Well, the government, of course—so it says—or is it? I'm sure Anthony Albanese's mates in those big union superannuation funds are out there recruiting builders as we speak.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Roberts! Remember to refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prime Minister Albanese's mates in those big union superannuation funds are out there recruiting builders as we speak, ready to open their construction division to build and own Australian housing. If the project runs over budget, who cares? It's taxpayer money. After all, the government is giving a liability guarantee, so just shovel that government money right in there.

The bill will distort the housing construction market. On one hand, suppliers are under pressure to hold costs down to make private-sector construction affordable for everyday Australians to build and own their homes. On the other hand, Housing Australia will be out there paying top dollar to get their materials and labour to deliver the homes to keep their jobs. What could go wrong with that? The Albanese government could have worked with the supply chain and with banks to put in place supply chain security to keep existing builders in business. Instead, it went the Soviet route again, pushed the private sector aside and let the government build it.

The third part of this package is the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023. That streamlining thing I mentioned earlier apparently extends to creating a whole new advisory body called the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to advise the Commonwealth government on matters related to housing supply and affordability. It's more bureaucracy. We already have the Productivity Commission and the Australian Bureau of Statistics to provide this economic statistical data. We have a federal department to advise the minister on housing. Now we have a whole new body as well—more bureaucrats. Where is the corresponding reduction in the department's budget allocation, reflecting a substantially reduced workload? Bigger government is the Labor Party's answer to everything. History would disagree.

The numbers on this bill do not add up. The Housing Australia Future Fund, HAFF, will receive $10 billion to fund the delivery of 30,000 social and affordable homes and allocate an additional $330 million to acute housing needs over the HAFF's first five years. Oh, really? I noticed, though, that the budget line item for this bill is $15.2 billion. The explanatory memorandum states the Housing Australia Future Fund 'would be credited with $10 billion as soon as practicable after establishment.' Where's the other $5 billion going? Once invested, the Housing Australia Future Fund would provide up to $500 million per year to support social and affordable housing. That's a five per cent return on investment, which is nice if you can get it in the current investment market. The Future Fund can't. Their return on funds invested in the 2022 calendar year was negative 3.7 per cent. The fund would be reduced and no houses built—borrowed money, interest costs, lost money, no homes built. Even at a five per cent return on investment, a $500 million dividend for five years—that's $2½ billion—divided by the 30,000 homes is $83,300 per home. One may speculate that these are going to be really tiny homes, yet the truth is likely far worse than that.

What would a home built by this Labor government actually look like? Subdivisions will be of the modern design, with narrow streets, because cars are an environmental sin, and we will never have the generation capacity for everyday Australians to use electric cars. Those are for the city elites, in the nomenclature. Eliminating excavation for obsolete parking garages will save money. Residents will instead walk or ride children's scooters. Shopping will be delivered by drone from BlackRock and Vanguard-owned businesses like Amazon, Coles and Woolworths. Cameras will keep you safe and inside your 15-minute allocated region. Are cameras coming out of the $83,000 for each house or are local governments paying for those?

Home units will be constructed to the four corners of each block, and the landscaping which used to soften these buildings will no longer be allowed, because pointless plants waste water. Canberra's posh Red Hill suburb, where senior bureaucrats live, gets beauty while everyday Australians get utility. They get cell blocks, really. Ceilings will be lowered, walkways narrowed and walls made thinner to squeeze additional units into low-rise blocks without lifts, with a daily water allowance of 120 litres per person. I remember receiving a presentation on that target back in 2019. A standard bathtub holds 180 litres, so baths are every bit as much the environmental vandals as gas stoves. Don't laugh, Senator Duniam. Toilets will be half flush only. I don't get this one. Is there a little electric charge that zaps you if you flush twice? How does that save water? Smart water meters will police water limits and make home and balcony gardens impossible to keep watered. So purchasing food from corporate supermarkets and corporate takeaways will be the only way to eat. Smart electricity meters will police our daily energy allowance and remotely switch off unapproved appliances.

All of these things are the current ideology of modern urban design, stated in writing. Many of these are already evident in council building codes. Smart meters are being deployed as we speak. Once the reality of having to sell a home built to these standards is removed by government ownership, all of these measures will be standard. Even if you apply Hive home ideology, can the cost come down to $83,000 per house? I doubt it. But to use a yardstick of $400,000 or more is to ignore the real intent of the bill. It is a principle we are hearing a lot, lately: you will own nothing and be happy, or else.

After the bill passes, the minister will decide where and how the money will be spent. After the bill passes, we'll get the details. Disbursements, including grants made under the scheme, will be a budget measure, meaning the Senate can't disallow them. The legislation does not include the rules around who can and can't get a grant or disbursement, so this bill is really a $2.5 billion blank cheque. Clause 49 would allow the future fund board to use derivatives for certain purposes. This could include using derivatives as a risk management tool or to achieve indirect exposure to assets that it could not otherwise achieve. That sounds terrifying. I look forward to the minister's explaining the intention of this section in the committee stage. We have questions for you.

The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 'establishes the council as an independent statutory advisory body to inform the Commonwealth's approach to housing policy by delivering independent advice to the government on options to improve housing supply and affordability'. This is more bureaucracy. Does this suggest that the bureaucrats have been giving poor advice to the government? We already have a Commonwealth department of housing. What's gone wrong with that department that we need this whole new additional body? Or is this just another opportunity for jobs for your mates among union bosses and among the union superannuation industry?

This bill should have been about getting people into their own homes. That requires making life easier for private-sector homebuilders and for private homeownership, which will take demand out of rental accommodation and free up homes at more-realistic prices for those who can only rent. Instead, Prime Minister Albanese is using government construction to push private homebuilders out of the market and entrench renting over owning. There is a lot of additional bureaucracy and a lot of economic and social harm for proportionally little benefit, for almost no benefit.

One Nation opposes this Soviet-style reckless, wasteful market intervention. One Nation proposes getting down to basics: cutting immigration until housing and infrastructure catch up; cutting red tape, green tape and blue UN tape; comprehensively reforming taxation to give Australians a fair go; shrinking government to fit the Constitution; and getting the government the hell out of people's lives, enabling people to make choices that suit people's and families' needs. We do not need more bureaucrats and more waste; we need more houses, real houses. We need a return to basics. Let the tradies of Australia get on with the job.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. These bills display once again that the Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring that Australians have access to safe, secure and affordable housing.

For far too long the Australian people have suffered housing insecurity, thanks to those opposite not making the changes necessary to improve secure and affordable housing for those in our communities who are in need. Safe and affordable housing is not something that all Australians have access to, and this has disproportionately affected high-risk communities such as women and children. With the cost-of-living pressure persisting, more and more Australians are struggling with the cost of rent. We can't deny that. These bills will help Australians who need affordable social housing to get it. We should not be demeaning people for needing social housing. We can never stamp out all the issues that have led to their need for social housing, but we can provide housing to help get people into a safer environment.

We know that the fastest growing cohort of homeless people in this country is women aged over 55. In the last nine years we have seen a massive increase in the number of homeless people living on the streets in my home city of Launceston and in Hobart. We see families living in cars. We see them living in tents. While those opposite were in government for nine years, they did nothing. And what do we see from them now that they're in opposition? It's so good to have Senator Duniam in the chamber today, because he likes to go back to Tasmania and talk about the Labor-Greens—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted. It's 11.15 and we're moving to notices.