Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim—Minister Wong?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I indicate—we've obviously had a lot of contributions on this legislation. It's a bill which was introduced to the parliament over 290 days ago. It was introduced to the Senate over 200 days ago. I know that the Greens don't want to vote, but, if you have a position to vote with Mr Dutton, you should allow this to come to a vote. This is a ridiculous waste of time.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Wong, could you just take your seat for a second? Senator McKim was in continuation, and I did provide the call. You have a point of order, Senator McKim?

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Acting Deputy President; I was trying to indicate that I do have a point of order, and thanks, Senator Wong, for allowing me to do this. As you've pointed out, I was in continuation. I just seek your advice or the advice of the table on whether Senator Wong is able to interrupt my contribution in the way that she has or whether I have precedence to finish my speech prior to any contribution from Senator Wong.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McKim. I have sought advice from the clerk, and you do have the call in continuation.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You really don't want to vote on this.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why do you want to vote against housing? You said you won't.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks very much, Acting Deputy President Cox, for confirming that I do have the call. I will take the interjections from Senator Wong and Senator Watt here and turn the question back around. Why are you putting forward legislation that will provide fractional help to 0.2 of one per cent of Australian renters and actually disadvantage the other 99.8 per cent of Australian renters? That is the question that you have to explain to the Australian people and, in particular, to Australian renters, 99.8 per cent of whom are going to be disadvantaged by this legislation, because, as with so much of your government's housing policy, you are going to contribute yet again to turbocharging house prices in Australia, which, of course, will price more and more people out of the market.

I find it strange that the Greens have to explain to you why making the market and housing less affordable for 99.8 per cent of renters is a bad thing, but I'm going to give it a go. The reason that it's a bad thing is that, over a long period of time now, we have seen the creation of a housing bubble. There are a lot of reasons for that. One is the political stitch-up between Labor and the coalition on massive tax breaks for property speculators—about $196 billion of tax concessions for property speculators over a decade. That drives up house prices. So, when someone wants to get in the market and buy their first home, they are competing at auction with someone who might own two, three, five, 10, 50 or 100 investment properties, or, in a small number of cases, many hundreds of investment properties. Those property speculators have the advantage of these massive tax concessions in the form of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount.

In the early years of the pandemic, we also saw the Reserve Bank of Australia engage in massive money printing or quantitative easing. They printed about $400 billion worth of money. Of course, that was effectively free money to the retail banks. They turned around and lent a large proportion of that effectively free money printed by the RBA to their highest margin product, which was, of course, home loans, again turbocharging the housing bubble. We all remember the massive spike in house prices that occurred in the first 18 months to two years of the pandemic, turbocharged by the Reserve Bank of Australia in a money-printing extravaganza that a former governor of the Reserve Bank, Philip Lowe, admitted was the wrong decision and was overegged. Now Labor wants to come in and contribute yet again to the housing bubble in Australia.

What Labor need to explain is why they're so keen to see this legislation progress, given that it is literally a lottery that only 0.2 of one per cent of the renters of Australia will be successful in. And, yes, it will provide that very small number of people—somewhere in the region of 10,000—with a very small marginal benefit, but it will be to the detriment of the other 99.8 per cent. That's what Labor has to explain here.

It's not just the Greens saying that this is going to push up house prices. This bill was taken to a Senate inquiry where we heard a range of expert evidence that this legislation would push up house prices. For example, Professor John Quiggin, professor of economics at the University of Queensland, said:

These schemes have been around forever, but the money is eventually capitalised into house prices, so the beneficiaries gain at the expense of everyone else.

So what Labor are going to need to justify to the renters of Australia—who are not exclusively but overwhelmingly younger Australians—is why they want to put upward pressure on house prices and price more and more renters out of the housing market. That's what Labor have to explain, and they've been abjectly unable to explain that—as we know from Labor's failure to invest in constructing new affordable social housing and from Labor's failure to accept the suggestion of the Greens, who are in here fighting for renters, that we should have a cap on rent increases in Australia to provide renters with relief from rents that have gone up by 30 per cent since the Labor Party came into office. Let's have a look at people on JobSeeker.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order—I can't hear my colleague over the shouting from Senator Wong over there. She's a little bit sensitive today!

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll just give a reminder to those who are in the chamber—there's a lot of chatter this afternoon—that Senator McKim, like all senators, should receive the same respect of being heard in silence.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's very unusual that people close to me can't hear me, but I guess there's a first time for everything!

But I want to talk about people who are on youth allowance, just briefly. Basically, someone who is on youth allowance can afford only $102 a week on rent before they hit rental stress. What do you reckon you're going to get for 102 bucks a week currently in Australia, where rents have gone up by 30 per cent since Labor came into office, just two short years ago? Do you know what you can get for 102 bucks a week in Australia? Absolutely nothing.

I also want to talk about my home state of Tasmania. Almost half of Tasmanians who have a mortgage are in mortgage stress, which is defined as having to spend 30 per cent or more of their annual household income on mortgage repayments. In a housing survey in May this year by EMRS—a very reputable polling company in Australia—89 per cent of Tasmanians, almost everyone, agreed that Tasmania is in a housing crisis. Just to put that in context, you could poll support for breathing and you'd only get 95 per cent; you wouldn't get 100 per cent support. So 89 per cent means that Tasmanians overwhelmingly agree that Tasmania is in a housing crisis. And of course this is not just a housing crisis in Tasmania. This is a national housing crisis.

It is time for Labor to get serious about addressing this absolute societal calamity that we are living through in Australia—this housing catastrophe in which millions of Australians are in either rent or mortgage stress, where homelessness is increasing, where people right across the age spectrum are being done over by landlords who are able, under Labor's policy settings, to increase their rent by whatever they like. And then they say, 'Oh, well, the market can determine it.' Well, here's a message for the Labor Party: housing shouldn't be a market. Housing is a human right. Everyone in this country has a right to a safe and affordable home.

The former housing minister for the Labor Party, Ms Collins, said the quiet thing out loud on 7.30 about 12 to 15 months ago. She said that she wanted to see housing as an asset class. Talk about saying the quiet thing out loud! Housing shouldn't be an asset class; housing should be a place for people to live. It should be a place where people can live safely and securely at a decent temperature with decent amenities and decent facilities at an affordable rate, whether they have a mortgage or are in the rental market. Instead of actually taking the significant action that is required to address this housing crisis, Labor are fiddling around at the margins because they want to be seen to be doing something even though they're not actually doing anything. This is all about the perception for the Labor Party, and it has nothing at all to do with actually taking meaningful action to address the housing crisis in Australia.

Rents have gone up 30 per cent since the Labor Party came into power. Since the Labor Party came into power, mortgages in this country have increased on average by over $1,600 a month. That's the situation that Labor have overseen, and that is the situation they should be acting to fix. Instead, they're bringing in legislation that will actually continue to put upward pressure on house prices and price more and more renters—a significant number of whom are young Australians—out of the market. Young Australians are seeing their dream of one day being able to afford their own home evaporate.

Rather than fixate on when this vote is going to be, playing some political game that only they themselves understand, the Labor Party should actually be fixating on solving the housing crisis. What this bill is not going to do is solve the housing crisis. What this bill will do is exacerbate an element of the housing crisis. Even though it will provide marginal benefit to 0.2 per cent of Australian renters, it will make housing less affordable for the other 99.8 per cent.

Folks, single parents are skipping meals.

Honourable senators interjecting—

This is actually not funny, for those who are laughing, but single parents are skipping meals to be able to feed their children. People are having to dumpster-dive to put food on the table. Poverty is a political choice, and it's a political choice made by parties that won't increase income support and that still support the $190-odd billion that goes into tax breaks for property speculators in the form of negative gearing and capital gains tax discount. The housing market in this country is skewed in a grossly unfair way towards property speculators, many of whom have 10 or 20 or 30—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: I'd just like to bring the state of the chamber to the attention of the Acting Deputy President.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are so desperate.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wow! Are you that embarrassed about voting against housing?

(Quorum formed)

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 1.30 pm, we'll now move to two-minute statements.