David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

We stand at a pivotal point in Australian history, grappling with a housing crisis that is impacting all aspects of our society. Economist Alan Kohler and numerous other experts agree: Australia's housing system is in a disastrous predicament. We have some of the world's most expensive housing, effectively locking more and more young people out of home ownership. Rising rental stress is pushing more renters into poverty, and homelessness is increasing, with growing numbers sleeping in their cars or living in tents.

These issues are not just statistics; they represent real people and families. Consider the women escaping domestic violence who must camp out at already full refuges because there are no affordable rental options. Think of those facing steep housing cost hikes because rent restrictions on their government-subsidised affordable rental home are expiring. Picture the young adults seeing their hopes of home ownership fade as property prices continue to outpace wages.

Our underperforming housing system isn't only a concern for those directly affected. The damaging impacts on growth and productivity make us all poorer. Over-expensive housing means Australia has one of the highest household debt rates in the world. This debt is mainly sunk into housing—an unproductive asset. Investment that could and should be creating more jobs and prosperity is instead tied up in real estate.

Many of our housing problems have escalated in the past couple of years, made worse by policy mistakes like the former government's HomeBuilder program. But housing stresses are hardly new for Australia. They've been building not just for years, but for decades.

This is obviously a complex area and there is no single solution or silver bullet. In a complex system, some solutions can have unintended consequences that may end up causing bigger problems than they solve. Only by pulling all the right policy levers in a coordinated way can we possibly address the problem. That's why housing is one of those areas where a strategic approach to policy making is desperately needed.

Under the Constitution, state and territory governments have direct responsibility for housing services and development. But it is the Commonwealth Government that retains control over key housing-related powers, including tax, social security, and migration. Only a national plan led by the Commonwealth can commit to actions related to these powers. Only the Commonwealth can coordinate nationally consistent approaches to housing regulation and funding.

This would not eliminate the need for complementary strategies at the state and territory level to reflect the diversity of housing policy challenges and opportunities across Australia. Rather, it sets out the national priorities that such documents should address.

The Albanese Government has pledged to develop a National Housing and Homelessness Plan and has been progressing this. But they declined to embed the Plan in law. Doing so would enhance its standing and durability. We must lock in the responsibility of the national government to maintain a sustained interest in Australia's housing future. The country can't afford to continue with the erratic level of engagement we've seen over recent decades. That's why we need legislation that will continue to bind future governments, irrespective of political complexion and priorities.

The debate on this Bill can enable Parliament to strengthen the Plan by defining its scope and ambition, as well as by identifying the housing policy challenges it needs to address. Another reason for tabling this Bill is my concern about the way the Government's Plan development process has been unfolding over the past year or so. It has been a low-profile exercise, based on an official Issues Paper that was highly inadequate in the scope and depth of its analysis.

This Bill takes its legal force from the Commonwealth Government's constitutional authority on external affairs. It will give effect to our international obligation to ensure access to adequate housing as a human right. This dates back to an international treaty Australia signed in 1966, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). There are precedents for this approach to legislating on housing at the Commonwealth level.

Numerous other OECD countries have formal national housing and/or homelessness strategies. The most directly relevant of these is Canada, which legislated its first-ever National Housing Strategy in 2019. The particular relevance of the Canadian example is that it involves a federal state with many governmental similarities to Australia. That's why the Australian legislation is directly influenced by the Canadian model.

Especially important aspects of Canada's approach that have inspired our own Bill are the Canadian oversight and accountability dimensions. The Australian Act will therefore create a National Housing Consumer Council and a National Housing and Homelessness Advocate. The Council will advise the Minister on the Plan's effectiveness from the perspective of tenants and homebuyers. This is an important counterweight to the powerful influence wielded by housing industry interests in Australia. The Advocate will monitor the Plan's implementation and conduct reviews of systemic housing issues to inform Plan evolution.

The Bill also designates Housing Australia as the lead agency for assisting the Minister in developing, implementing, and maintaining the Plan. This reflects the fact that there is no department of housing in the Commonwealth Government's administrative structure. It is therefore logical to task these Plan-related functions with the specialist agency already established in this area. Again, as a specialist national agency supporting housing policymaking, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) provides a relevant example for Australia.

This Act will provide a framework for the Plan, rather than the detail of its content. It is appropriate for that content to be developed within this framework by competent officials. That must be informed by consultation with interest groups, technical experts, and the public at large. The current government has already progressed a process of this kind, although only in a relatively low-profile way and, I would argue, without adequate underlying analysis of the problems the Plan should seek to address.

The Bill specifies Plan objectives as follows:

1. Ensuring everyone in Australia has an adequate home

2. Preventing and ending homelessness

3. Ensuring the social housing system meets needs and drives wider housing system performance

4. Improving choice in the housing system

5. Improving housing quality

6. Improving housing affordability

7. Improving housing supply

8. Improving the contribution of the housing system to wider economic performance

9. Improving the ability of people with disability to live in the community, with choices equal to others

10. Involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in developing, determining, and administering housing programs affecting them

These goals have been inspired by research published last year by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. They reflect what the researchers identified as housing policy objectives on which there is a high degree of expert and public consensus. The proposed goals also reflect expert consensus views on the range of housing problems currently affecting Australia, such as insufficient housing consumer choice and unsatisfactory housing energy performance.

The suggested objectives also indicate the Plan's intended scope; for example, addressing poor housing conditions as well as housing shortage and unaffordability. A legislated National Housing and Homelessness Plan cannot guarantee that Australia will squarely face up to its housing problems. It cannot ensure that resulting measures will decisively moderate the housing stress affecting growing numbers of Australians. But I believe it is an essential pre-condition for the more equitable and functional housing system the country badly needs.

Our housing system is in crisis, impacting individuals and families across Australia. The damaging effects on growth and productivity affect us all. Only a coordinated national plan, embedded in law, can address the complex and multifaceted nature of this crisis. The legislation I propose will ensure that we take a strategic and sustained approach to housing policy, benefiting current and future generations of Australians.

I thank the Member for North Sydney, Kylea Tink, for moving this Bill in the House of Representatives, and the Member for Indi, Dr. Helen Haines, for seconding it. I'd also like to thank Professor Hal Pawson and Dr. Chris Martin for their work and input into this Bill, as well as the 117 individuals and organizations, including leading academics, industry experts, economists, former politicians from both sides of politics, peak bodies, and advocates who have signed an open letter calling on the Housing Minister to legislate such a plan.

I commend this Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.