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

Tasmanians are struggling with the burden of rising housing costs. People are being forced to live in vans or are sleeping in the streets or in our parks because they cannot afford to rent or to buy their own home. And there aren't enough places where you can park your van for very long which don't cost you money.

I'm proud that the Albanese Labor government is actually working to lift people out of these dire situations and into good, decent housing. On this side, we fundamentally believe in the value of a home and what it means to someone who is struggling to get by. Housing is the very first step in establishing a good living, an education and a pathway to a decent career. How could you possibly imagine pulling yourself up by the bootstraps without basic shelter? How can children possibly realise their dreams when they cannot even study, eat or sleep under their own roof? As ridiculous as it sounds, those opposite somehow believe, ideologically, that the opportunities that social housing bring to our communities are meaningless. In other words, they think that vulnerable people should be left out to the wolves. It isn't just me saying this; all of us have witnessed how the coalition has abandoned those in need of housing time and time again. For a decade, those opposite dismantled social housing programs and refused to do a single thing to build more homes. That was 10 years of lost opportunity, 10 years of abandonment and 10 years of cruelty towards the most vulnerable Australians.

In Tasmania, the last remaining state Liberal government in this country stands—regrettably—even if it is very wobbly at the moment. They have dropped the ball on social housing—they have dropped the ball! Tasmanians have been left with over 4½ thousand applicants waiting to secure a home, according to recent data. The waitlist lasts up to 80.8 weeks—80.8 weeks! Many people now don't even bother to apply for a housing department home in my home state because they know they will be left in limbo year after year.

And it isn't just these numbers that are causing misery and despair in our communities in Tasmania and around the rest of the country; large numbers of vacant homes have been kept off the market by the state housing department in my home state of Tasmania. How cruel is that? We know how desperate people are and that we have the homeless living on the streets or in vans outside netball centres. This is going on in our country and what do the Liberals do? Absolutely nothing! What is even worse is that the Tasmanian Liberal senators who sit in this chamber never talk about homelessness. They never talk about housing and the crisis that we're facing right across the country, or even look at what's happening in our own backyard in Tasmania; they're only interested in other issues. The mentality of those on the other side is this: they say that if you just get out and have a go then you'll get somewhere. I can recall a former prime minister saying that, 'If you get out and have a go you will be able to do what you want to do.' Or, 'If you've got a rich parent they'll be able to buy you a house.' That's not the reality.

It has taken the Labor government to get a solution—along with negotiations with the Greens. Finally, I might add! The Greens have finally come to the party and actually put the Australian people before their own political agenda. They're all about slogans; Labor is about solutions. And we need a solution, because the fundamental right of every Australian is to have a secure home which they can afford. And if they can't do that then we should be doing what we can to provide it.

We know that in Tasmania there's a skills and workforce shortage, and people are accepting jobs in these areas where we desperately need their experience and their expertise, but they can't take up those jobs because they can't find a house. They can't find a house to rent and they certainly can't find a house that is affordable. The desperation of Tasmanians trying to find a home can be seen when looking at devastating short-stay figures. There are 4,255 dwellings in Tasmania that have been listed as short-stay rentals, including 365 in Launceston, where I live. I'm not opposed to short-stay accommodation, but what we desperately need is for the Tasmanian government to now work with the Albanese Labor government to ensure that we have more houses being built on the ground for social housing and that Tasmanians are no longer locked out of the opportunity of having a social house or being able to afford a house.

This is why our record investments in thousands of new social housing dwellings matter. They matter for families trying to house and feed their children, and they matter for finally reversing the Liberal neglect of these families at both state and federal level. With our population growing in Tasmania and expected to hit almost 600,000 by 2041, in the time going forward it will be essential to have those houses built on the ground. We need action now to ensure that people in Tasmania and around Australia have access to housing that is safe, secure and affordable. That's why it's so important that we finally got the Greens in the room. I want to pay full credit to Minister Julie Collins, a Tasmanian, for her hard work of being able to finally get the Greens to see that they should be putting Australians before themselves.

These bills will make a real difference in the lives of thousands of Tasmanians. The wait time for social housing in Tasmania has blown out because we simply do not have enough houses to meet the demand. In places around Australia that are facing the same problem, this suite of bills will help to combat this. The Labor government's housing reform agenda is ambitious, but we made a commitment at the election to address the dire housing crisis around Australia. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill establishes a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to be invested by the Future Fund Board of Guardians to create returns which will fund affordable social housing. This fund will help to deliver 30,000 new social houses. It will provide $200 million over five years for housing in Indigenous communities, $100 million for housing for women and children impacted by domestic violence and women at risk of homelessness, and $30 million to build housing for veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The Albanese government will deliver for Tasmanians with the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is set to deliver homes for vulnerable Tasmanians. This important investment is a long time coming, after 10 years of discussion, delay and lack of consultation by the former coalition government on social affordable housing. The changes announced will ensure all states and territories benefit from the government's housing agenda to put more roofs over people's heads.

Typically of the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team, as I said before, they have shown no interest whatsoever in ensuring that vulnerable Tasmanians have their needs met or in providing affordable or social housing for them. They have failed Tasmanians time and time again. We cannot forget that they had 10 years in government but what they have delivered for the Tasmanian community is more despair, more desperation and more people living on the streets and being homeless. That's what they have done, and they have been the star members of their 'no-alition' on this issue of housing affordability and social housing. It's a disgrace.

Housing Australia's investment mandate will ensure a minimum of 1,200 dwellings in each state and territory over the first five years of the Housing Australia Future Fund, which means Tasmania will receive its fair share under the government's commitment to build 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes in the fund's first five years. It is no time to complain about this historic reform. The Albanese government is getting on with the job of building social and affordable housing, because we know that too many Tasmanians and too many Australians are sleeping rough. And this is just the beginning. This will ensure that more people have a roof over their heads.

I thank all those who are supporting this bill today. Those opposite are still waiting, willing to see people go without a home, because of their DNA of 'You can do it; why don't you just go out and get a job like everyone else does?' And why do they say that? It's because they have no understanding of what it's like to struggle, to not be able to provide shelter for your family, to not be able to provide enough money at the end of the fortnight after you've got your social security benefit to buy a carton of milk for your kids. They don't know what it's like to say no when their kids can't go on a school camp. They have no understanding of the impact on children who are raised in poverty, in insecure living arrangements. That impact means that those children all too often miss out on days at school. They don't have a balanced, healthy diet. This all has an impact on the development of their brain. That's the real impact of the lack of social and affordable housing on our community.

We, as a rich nation, should not accept that. That is why we did the deal that had to be done with the Greens and the crossbench to help more Australians—more children, more women who are fleeing domestic violence and are at risk of homelessness. We know that the cohort of women aged 55 and older is the fastest-growing cohort of homeless people in this country, and we should be ashamed of that. We're a rich nation. We can do more and we must do more. It's time those on that side got out of the way and accepted the fact that this bill will change the lives of ordinary Australians—those who are struggling to make ends meet, those who can't afford to provide a home for their family. Put yourself in the shoes of a mother or father who can't provide that shelter for their children, or who have to farm their children off to relatives. Just think about those people. Stop for one minute and put yourself in those people's shoes. Maybe then you might decide to support these pieces of legislation.

But I somehow doubt it, because I think it's in their DNA, because they've always had a helping hand. They've come from very privileged lives. They have no understanding of what Australians are going through at this point in time.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the housing bills—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. We're in a housing crisis, and I hope that's now abundantly clear to everyone in this chamber, as it has been abundantly clear to everyone in the community for quite some time now. Our party thinks that housing is a human right, yet we are facing staggering numbers of people without a home. The rates of homelessness are skyrocketing, the rates of rent rises are skyrocketing and, as we've just heard from the previous speaker, young people have given up hope of ever being able to own a home. They're now struggling to pay the rent, let alone to consider owning a home. We are in a full-blown housing crisis. We know that it is touching people that have previously not experienced such precariousness. We know that it's hurting single parents, women and children fleeing domestic violence, young people, older people and people on inadequate pensions. This crisis is touching so many people.

It's against this backdrop, I might add, that we have a $39 billion yearly commitment to retain the tax perks that go to property speculators and investors—$39 billion, just in this current financial year, that this government will continue to spend on people who have five, six, seven or 18 investment properties. I'm flagging that we will come for you on that issue. We maintain that that is a very poor spend that is actually worsening the housing crisis and clearly deepening the inequality in housing.

It was against this backdrop that about nine months ago the government proposed the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill, which we're coming back to debate today. The structure proposed by the government was not direct spending on housing, such as you would have for schools or hospitals. It was this complicated arrangement whereby a new body would gamble some money on the stock market and if that gamble paid off and there were some profits then some of that money, up to $500 million but not more, could be spent on housing. What a sham structure! It's exactly why the Greens said not only that this was inadequate but that it was a poorly designed process for funding what is a fundamental human right, which is the right to have a roof over your head.

So we held out and we pushed for more. We came under some fairly strong criticism for doing that, and not just from the people in this place. There were others who were urging us to just pass this bill. Certainly the crossbench were saying: 'Oh, this is a good start. Just get on with it.' Well, fast-forward nine months to yesterday, when the Greens were able to extract $3 billion in direct funding for social and affordable housing from this government as a result of our negotiations. That is tens of thousands of people who will now have a roof over their heads and would not have got that were it not for us having strong negotiations and holding the line for as long as we did. So I want to commend Greens leader Adam Bandt MP and our housing spokesperson, Max Chandler-Mather MP from my home state of Queensland, for driving what was a strong and powerful negotiation that has landed in a good place. We are proud that so many more people now will be able to have the benefit of a roof over their heads, which they would not have had we folded to the demands of some others that we simply wave through this inadequate piece of legislation.

So we now have an additional $3 billion of direct funding to go to build social and affordable housing. Of course, $2 billion of that was announced with the Social Housing Accelerator a couple of months back, and then just yesterday a further $1 billion was announced by the Prime Minister as a result of negotiation with the Greens. This is in addition, of course, to the agreement to have a minimum spend of $500 million from the Housing Australia Future Fund, even if the gamble on the stock market doesn't pay off for you that year. What we've really shown is that pressure works. We have secured an additional $3 billion for social and affordable homes, building thousands of homes for low-income renters, and we will now allow the HAFF to pass through the Senate this sitting week.

We always asked for two things. We asked for a decent amount of spend on social and affordable homes, and we've secured that: $3 billion. But we also asked for action to protect renters. Nationally, we have seen rents increase by 24 per cent in the last 12 months. That is astronomical. We are hearing so many anecdotes as we doorknock, from the legions of people that we've spoken with in recent months. There are many horror stories of people who might have been expecting a little bit of a rent increase but are now being hit with hundreds of dollars of rent increases by their landlords and who are simply not able to pay that increase. People are facing homelessness because of the profiteering of landlords who are increasing rents beyond what they need to to cover costs—remembering that we subsidise them with negative gearing already. This is making the homelessness crisis worse, and it is increasing the waiting list for social housing, which is already at 640,000 nationally. It's at least 50,000 in my home state of Queensland. Our policy settings have to date been making this problem worse, and real people are suffering as a result. Unlimited rent rises should be illegal.

We pushed the government on this. This has now become a national conversation because so many people are feeling this in the real world. But never before has National Cabinet had to debate tenants' rights and rental rises. We are proud to have ensured that National Cabinet, the Prime Minister and all the premiers and chief ministers sat around the table and talked about who's got responsibility and what should be done to address the rental crisis. Unfortunately, whilst the pressure engineered that meeting to occur, the results of the meeting were pretty flimsy. Many of the announcements that were made simply built upon what states and territories were already doing and made some small tweaks, but we don't have a rent freeze nationally. We don't have rent caps, and we don't have a plan from the federal government to make unlimited rent rises illegal. I've heard the government say in other contexts that, when a crisis is a national one, it deserves national attention. It seems that they only say that selectively. What they've said about rents is basically that rents are not their problem—'This is a state and territory matter'—and, yet, you cannot have both things true at the same time. If on other matters you're saying the crisis is so great that it deserves a national response, why are you not accepting that we are in a national rental crisis and that the federal government should do more? At the very least, you could incentivise the states and use that gentle pressure.

It is wall-to-wall Labor governments on the mainland. You're all on the same team. Don't tell me that the Prime Minister doesn't have any power to shape national policy, to coordinate and collaborate with and to incentivise the states and territories to stop unlimited rent rises, make them illegal and bring in some meaningful standards for tenants—not the wishy-washy commitment to running water that National Cabinet came out with. Really? Is that the level of expectation that renters can expect from this government—a commitment to running water? You would hope that it wouldn't require a National Cabinet meeting to guarantee running water for tenants. We need so much stronger standards for tenants. We need to investigate longer leases. We need to make those no-grounds evictions rules nationwide and consistent. Wouldn't it be nice to have a right to a pet, as a tenant? We know how good for mental health having an animal companion is. Wouldn't it be good if we could have some national standards relating to that? There is so much that the federal government could do to respond to the rental crisis that we are facing. And yet, we have nada. There was only the most minimal outcome from the National Cabinet meeting.

I say to the government: we will keep pushing for a rent freeze. We will keep pushing to make unlimited rent rises illegal. We do think it's your job as the federal government, particularly when all the state and territory governments on the mainland are from your political party, to address this crisis. Moreover, people out there think it's your job to address this crisis. People out there are really feeling the pain of the stratospheric rent increases that they've faced in the last 12 months. They know now that there's someone in this parliament fighting for them. We have put renters' rights on the agenda nationally, and we will keep fighting for an outcome. We were not able to get it this time around, but there's more legislation coming. We have warned the government—and I am doing so again today—that we will be using our power in this place to fight for renters. You should be doing the same. This shouldn't be a political issue, but someone has got to fight for renters. I would hope that you would all do that, but we're the ones pushing for it, and, until such time as you come to the party, be warned: people are not happy, and people expect better from you. They changed the government, they wanted a change of policy, they wanted their material concerns addressed, and they're deeply disappointed and underwhelmed by what they've seen so far from this new government.

This is an invitation to the government to seriously consider those rental reforms that we are proposing, because they're what people deserve, they're what they want and this is really a human rights issue. In a wealthy country like ours, it is appalling that we can't see the opportunity here for the government of the day to help out renters, who are one-third of the population. I might add that this is the same government that's spending—what is it?—$500 billion now on nuclear submarines. It used to be $300-and-something billion, and we got it re-costed. It's half a trillion dollars now on nuclear submarines. You can find money for that. Stage three tax cuts are $300-and-something billion over 10 years now. Again, you're not poor when it comes to those things—weapons of war and tax cuts for the rich—but you're too poor to do something about renters and too poor to put in a decent amount of money to build social and affordable homes in a way that would end the waiting list, in a way that would ensure that everyone in this wealthy country of ours can have a roof over their heads.

We know the horror stories about people living in cars, people living in tents, people who are one rent rise away from that precarious situation. This is an eminently fixable issue, and we again urge the government to get on with it and fix it, and we warn you that we will not let up on this. The fight is just beginning, and we have legions of people out there who are backing us on this and who deserve a better outcome from their government.

With that, I move the second reading amendment on sheet 2109 that's just been circulated in my name in the chamber:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) Australia is in the middle of a rental crisis, and

(ii) Labor had the power and opportunity to freeze and cap rent increases through National Cabinet, but refused despite the fact Labor holds government federally and in every state and territory on the mainland; and

(b) agrees that every rent rise from here on out is Labor's fault and that unlimited rent rises should be illegal; and

(c) calls on the Federal Labor Government to coordinate a 2-year freeze on rent increases, followed by ongoing caps of 2%, through National Cabinet".

I also flag that Senator Faruqi does not wish to proceed with her second reading amendment, so I withdraw that on her behalf.

In the remaining time allotted to me, I want to share, if I have time, some of the horrific stories that we heard from renters through the Senate inquiry into the rental crisis, which the Greens were proud to spearhead and which has been going around the country giving a platform to people who've felt voiceless until now and felt that no-one in here was representing them, until they heard that the Greens were fighting for them. I probably don't have time to share the full testimony, but in Brisbane, in my home state of Queensland—or Meanjin, as it's also known—a lady called Jo gave evidence to the Senate inquiry and said:

I grew up in a family violence situation alongside my sister, and we sought help from the police, Centrelink and our university, but we didn't receive protection. Our abuser completely controlled our lives financially, emotionally and physically well into our 20s. In 2022, I fled Queensland when he threatened to kill me. I had just achieved a first-class honours degree. I'm not telling you this because I want you to feel sorry for me, but I do need you to understand that that experience is accompanied by a raft of financial penalties, from taking out a $30,000 HECS loan which enabled us to lessen the impact of the financial abuse, to routinely paying for treatment for complex post-traumatic stress disorder and physical injuries. …

This situation has cost me far more than the deposit on a home. Over time, the financial burden has accumulated, not least because I'm beholden to a housing market that unfairly prioritises investors. The abuse that I've managed for most of my life only ended last year …

And she goes on and tells the story of financial abuse and manipulation.

Jo was just one of the submitters to that inquiry. There were many in Brisbane. There were many around the country. These are real people. They expect action on the rental crisis and they expect a government to deliver on making unlimited rent rises illegal, and that's what the Greens will continue to push to achieve.

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise finally to speak on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills. It's true that there are a range of very serious issues which undermine the provision of housing in Australia. There is a large demand for increased social and affordable housing in our cities and our regions. The most recent census data counted 123,000 homeless people in 2021 in Australia, a 5.2 per cent increase since 2016. Women over the age of 55 are most at risk of homelessness, and they are the group that makes up the largest proportion of homeless Australians. Often these women have had careers, families and what could be described as stable lives. We see that it takes only a few things going wrong—a relationship breakdown, a financial downturn, illness or something else that life throws at them—and the women in this group have nowhere to go. We have to ask, why is it women in this group who end up in these situations? I believe it is women who end up here because of the precarious nature of women's savings, superannuation and financial position and systems that mean they rely on others for security and safety, which means they end up way more at risk than other groups. Those social and economic factors, and how they contribute to poor gendered outcomes, are things that we need to engage with and think about seriously.

Similarly, First Nations Australians continue to struggle with long-term and stable housing. We know this, because we heard in the Closing the gap statement that First Nations people in this country continue to be disproportionately disadvantaged when it comes to accessing secure, appropriate and affordable housing that's aligned with their priorities and their needs. In addition, too many Australians are being hit with growing rents and many others struggle to buy a home, even on fairly decent incomes. This is a reality we cannot accept; Australia is not a country where this sort of housing shortfall should be permitted to happen.

The Albanese government recognises this; we know that ensuring Australians have safe and affordable housing is central to securing the dignity in life which Australians not only deserve but are entitled to by virtue of living in Australia. That's why the housing reform before us today is ambitious and comprehensive. It has quite a few moving parts but, at its heart, is the establishment of the Housing Australia Future Fund. This is a legacy fund which will provide long-term stable investment in social and affordable housing across Australia. The future fund is a long-term plan; no more sugar hits and no more short-termism. It represents a $10 billion investment that will generate $500 million a year in returns which can be invested in perpetuity and used to build well-located social and affordable housing. This is a record investment from the Commonwealth which will transform the long-term future of Australia's housing supply and the affordability of housing market stock. Along with the Future Fund, we are widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and the legislation also establishes the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent advice to government on options to increase housing supply and affordability. What's more, the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee has already been accessed by nearly 3,000 Australians choosing to live in our regions, and the Help To Buy program makes home ownership cheaper and more accessible for those trying to access the housing market for the first time.

In addition to what is now an extra $3 billion, the government's entire plan is about getting more homes on the ground now. The social and affordable housing sector agrees that this funding will make a real difference, and will change lives. National Shelter, Homelessness Australia, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing Association, the Community Housing Industry Association and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute have all called for this legislation to pass the parliament as a matter of urgency.

The government also recognises that preventing people from falling into homelessness in the first place is a central aspect of good housing policy. Once people are on the street it becomes much harder to get them back into secure and stable housing. I'm so proud that the Labor government has committed $124 million to fund the equal remuneration order in the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. This will keep vital housing crisis support services open, functioning and properly staffed so that more people at risk of homelessness can access support services and get the help they need when they're on the precipice of becoming homeless. This will keep more people in homes and off the street, and takes an important preventative approach in solving the challenges in our housing system. I also acknowledge the campaigners who reminded the government of the importance of this money and the disproportionately positive impact that investing in prevention services has on our housing and homelessness outcomes.

I was glad to see every state and territory government signing up to support the Housing Australia Future Fund and the federal government's housing package earlier this year. This is on top of the establishment of the National Housing Accord, which reflects the shared ambition of federal, state and territory governments to build one million homes over five years from 2024. It's clear that state and territory governments are just as serious about improving the state of Australia's housing supply as the federal Labor government is. It's clear that all levels of government are willing to work together to achieve better outcomes. In matters of shared responsibility, like housing, this is a sensible approach, driven by the quality of results and the need to respond with urgency. It's clear that our states are serious, and so I find it astounding that the coalition has chosen negativity and scare campaigns in the debate around housing. They are suffering, I believe, from political relevance deprivation, so they figure that it's smart just to make some noise, throw up a few thought bubbles and hope that someone pays them some attention. But in the process of that political game, they actually deal themselves out of being part of big reform. They stop Australians getting safe and affordable housing and they actually make themselves even less relevant. By saying no to this reform, they are saying no to our nation's most vulnerable. They are saying that having 123,000 homeless people is okay. That is not tolerable. It is a shame. I would say that, when the time comes, it is unlikely that Australians will forget that when it comes to securing a better future for themselves and their kids. The Liberals and Nationals stood in the way of this government providing one of the most important aspects of that future—better housing for more Australians who are currently doing it tough.

The Liberals will come out with some ridiculous thought bubbles when it comes to housing policy. 'Home first, super second' is the latest iteration of this damaging thought bubble. We heard a bit of that in an earlier speech today. Imagine actively encouraging individuals to undermine their own stability in retirement rather than taking responsibility for what is a national policy problem. The coalition's housing problem is a lazy, regressive idea that shows they haven't learned anything. The impulse to kick the can down the road is ingrained in how they think about politics and policy. They can't bring themselves to do the right thing by Australians in the long-term and put the effort into coming up with some meaningful reforms. In short, they just refuse to take responsibility.

I'm glad the Greens political party have finally decided to join us on the road to solving Australia's housing shortfall; although I do think it's worth pointing out the Greens are now supporting a policy, the very essence of which their housing spokesman claimed only a few months ago would make the housing situation worse. Australians can make up their own minds about this contradiction in Greens' messaging, but from my point of view the whole saga has demonstrated the Greens are truly a political party who will say anything to wedge the government for as long as they can even if they agree in the end that the Labor Party got it right.

Nevertheless, it's a relief to have this legislation on its way to being passed in the parliament. Unfortunately, we cannot solve all the problems Australia's housing market faces overnight, nor can the Labor government undo in one year what has been 10 years of delay and neglect by the coalition government more focused on themselves than on Australia. But what we can do is take the massive $10 billion investment in the form of the Housing Australia Future Fund that will deliver 20,000 new social rentals the first five years plus 10,000 affordable homes and run with it. That will make a difference; that will have an impact. It is for that reason I'm pleased that senators in this place will work with the government on this reform and not stand in the way of delivering a better life for Australians who are homeless or on the brink of homelessness.

I read the newspapers and listen to the radio. I've watched the debate around social housing in Australia grow over the last 10 years of inaction. I've represented frontline housing workers who day in, day out work with Australia's most vulnerable to end their homelessness. I've heard from many peak bodies who all tell me there is a housing crisis. How we got to this point is a shame and should never have happened. But now the Albanese government is listening to Australians who need access to social and affordable housing. The housing market has a lot of problems. Not all of them can be fixed with one piece of legislation or, indeed, in one year.

The minister, Julie Collins, has done a fantastic job of getting us this far. She has advocated tirelessly for a better deal for Australians who are locked out of getting an affordable and safe place to live. Now the Senate must finish the job and bring this much-needed reform to Australians who need it the most—single older women, young people, First Nations Australians, the disadvantaged in our regions and our cities. I'm glad my Greens colleagues have weighed up the lives of those people against their political objectives and now support this legislation.

It is a shame the coalition didn't see the political value in these groups, because it will be up to those who voted not to increase investment in Australia's housing stock who will have to explain themselves to Australians, who right now need their help the most. I'm looking forward to delivering this election commitment to the Australian people and in doing so cementing another piece of legislation in the Albanese government's growing legacy of delivering a better future.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I feel like I'm in a Hunter S Thompson movie here, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, where I'm riding shotgun and popping Quaaludes on my way to gamble in Las Vegas, because that is what this bill is. The Labor Party wants to borrow $10 billion, invest it on the stock market, and then hope to make a return. How on earth are you going to generate a return when you have rising interest rates, rising oil prices? Let's just say, by the time—

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

Order! It is now 1.30. We will proceed to two-minute statements. Senator Rennick, you will be in continuation when we return to the legislation.