Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2018. Despite reservations when this bill was introduced, Labor support this bill with the amendments made to it in the House. For the record our reservations about the bill concerned the conditionality of housing and homelessness funding the government was seeking to impose upon the states and territories. Concerns were quite rightly raised by the states and territories that the government was seeking to create what would in effect be a vetting role for the Commonwealth over the housing and homelessness strategies of the states. Concerns were raised by many stakeholders that the potential for conflict between the Commonwealth and the states would inevitably delay funding to the states under the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. Amendments moved by the opposition and the government in the House have, however, allayed those concerns.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 in order to repeal the current national affordable housing specific purpose payment and replace it with new funding arrangements under which states and territories will be contingent on their being party to primary, supplementary and designated housing agreements. The NHHA will provide $375 million over three years from 2018-19, maintaining the current $115 million of annual homelessness funding provided under the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. This funding will be ongoing and indexed in order to maintain and provide funding to frontline services that help Australians who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. To ensure that funding for frontline homelessness services is preserved the NHHA will separately identify the indexed funding to be matched by the states that relates to the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness.

In Labor's 2013-14 budget annual homelessness funding under the NPAH stood at $159 million. In the Abbott government's disastrous 2014-15 budget $44 million a year in capital funding was cut from the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. Having an affordable, secure and appropriate home with reasonable access to services is essential to financial, social and emotional wellbeing. All Australians have the right to secure affordable and appropriate housing throughout their lives. Having a genuine chance to live near job opportunities is essential for the social and economic participation of Australians. For too many people the housing pressures they face are getting worse, not better. Australia has a housing crisis: a crisis of supply, affordability, suitability and sustainability.

Homelessness is a destructive and growing social and economic problem. It is simply unacceptable that in a country endowed with wealth and opportunity such as ours, many of our fellow Australians have nowhere they can call home. It is an inalienable human right of all Australians to have access to safe and affordable housing. There is no greater example of increasing inequality than the fact that many of our fellow Australians have to sleep on the streets, couch-surf or live in overcrowded, unhygienic and unacceptable housing conditions while others live in unimaginable luxury and privilege.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics census figures released recently show that the number of homeless Australians increased by 13.7 per cent since 2011, to 116,427. In New South Wales, my home state, the state hardest hit by the housing affordability crisis, the homelessness rate rose by 27 per cent, driven in large part by an increase in the number of people living in severely overcrowded dwellings. It pains me to say that my home state now accounts for one-third of all homeless Australians.

The government announced its intention to negotiate a new NHHA as part of its 2017-18 budget measures. The government has described the measures as 'a comprehensive plan to improve housing affordability'. Prior to the announcement of the 2017-18 budget measures, the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Sukkar, told Sky News: 'The housing package will be extraordinarily large. It will be far reaching. It will deal with all groups on the housing spectrum. It will be an impressive package. It will be a well-received package.' Well, we're still waiting. As it transpired, the package that was finally delivered was not well received at all. In fact, John Daley, the chief executive of the Grattan Institute, said:

You'll need a scanning electron microscope to see an impact on prices.

I can't see any reason why this budget is going to make a discernible difference to housing affordability; a discernible difference on the number of younger people that buy a house.

This bill places requirements on states and territories, with little commitment from the Commonwealth to use its own policy levers. The bill does not include any requirement on the federal government to deliver a plan. The Turnbull government does not have the comprehensive housing strategy that is necessary to resolve the country's large and growing crisis of housing affordability and supply for low and very low income households. The Abbott and Turnbull governments have had four budgets, in which they've had the opportunity to reform negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions, and they have failed at every turn. Worse still, the superannuation measure in the last budget aimed at helping young people to save for a house deposit actually undermines the retirement incomes of young Australians. The government's housing affordability package, as a whole, has to be described as a complete sham. But, as I said in my opening comments, the amendments that have been made to the bill in the House do improve the legislation and Labor will support the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2018 as it stands.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens support the swift passage of this bill because it is better than nothing. Decent amendments have been secured in the House—we know that—but it is a massive missed opportunity to make a meaningful difference to the lives of millions of people by ensuring we have homes for all. Real levels of funding have not been raised despite homelessness increasing by 13.7 per cent since 2011. That's just on 14 per cent. More than 116,000 people were experiencing homelessness on the census night in 2016. How disgraceful that is. It is something that should be a massive wake-up call. That was during the census of 2016. We have an idea of how bad it is, but we still have these bills before us that are so inadequate. We need a lot more social housing to balance out the marketplace. Developers in the marketplace are not a solution to the housing crisis this country is facing.

On Tuesday, there was a really important campaign launched, 'Everybody's Home'. They are calling for 500,000 new social homes. I very much congratulate all the organisations that have come together on a program that is going forward with a very solid campaign and real action to achieve more homes. The Greens have costed a plan to meet that target, yet this bill before us now barely deals with the resources that social housing needs—again, a real reminder of where this government is at. It still is committed to looking after the developers, the property speculators and the big banks to ensure that they're making more profits. It is not doing the job that any government should do: getting behind a decent policy that recognises housing as a human right and delivers the houses that are needed.

We had an interesting inquiry on this bill, and I wish to thank the secretariat for the committee and all the groups and individuals who gave evidence. It was very informative. As I've said, the Greens believe housing is a human right, and we approach this bill with that perspective. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum states that the bill engages with article 11.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, stating that everyone has the right 'to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family', including housing, and that appropriate steps will be taken to ensure the realisation of this right. It is interesting that the explanatory memorandum actually goes to that very important international covenant that gets to the heart of how and why housing is a human right.

But, regrettably, several witnesses expressed concern that the bill as it stood was not an appropriate step towards the realisation of housing as a human right. That should have sent the government back to the drawing board to get it right. The concerns are detailed in our additional comments on that bill. I want to share with you the comments from Jenny Smith, chair of Homelessness Australia, when she gave some very useful evidence to the inquiry on the bill. These are Ms Smith's words:

We spoke earlier about how housing is a very sensible way to turn off the tap to our prisons, to assist people dealing with health problems and to lower psychiatric conditions in our community. It's not possible to participate economically and it is usually disastrous for our social participation as well. We're not going to see any progress on that until we have a joined approach in this country. As it is currently drafted, the bill does not contribute to that.

The injustice caused by the Turnbull government's approach to housing is extreme. Whenever we talk about housing in this place while the government sticks with its present position, we have to just come to the essence of the problem. We know that decent housing is essential to people's wellbeing, dignity and sense of community. Yet for decades we've seen homelessness, insecurity and affordability get worse.

Meanwhile, what's happening? Some people are getting very, very rich. These figures that I'm about to share with you are shocking. They reflect how and why inequality is on the rise. Property developers on the BRW Rich List have increased their wealth by 56 per cent in just three years. And then how gross is this: 20,000 people own six or more investment properties. That is shocking. The profit margin of property operators and real estate services rose 57.6 per cent in the financial year 2015-16, and meanwhile the homelessness figures have increased by 14 per cent in the past five years or so. It is just unacceptable. In a rich country like Australia, the fact that we can't ensure that there are homes for all is a real indictment of governments that allow that to continue year after year.

What do we hear? 'Oh, the housing market is broken.' It's not actually broken; it's rigged. It's rigged in favour of the property developers, the speculators, the bankers and the developers who are out to make money. There would be people lining up when they hear that you can make a 56 per cent increase in your profits in just three years. People would be wanting to get into that. Sadly, there are some people who do want to make profit at that level and who are, sadly, very greedy. The way housing is managed in this country lends itself to that. It's really deeply shocking. These people want houses for profits, not people.

This bill is better than nothing. I've said that and that's certainly our position. It will at least give some certainty to housing providers and crisis services, but it does little to take on the vested interests who are happy to rake in profits while people suffer. We know that the property speculators, investors and developers won't give up without a fight. With the amount of money that they're making and with their riches—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Terrible—making a profit! Shouldn't have anyone making a profit!

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection, Senator Williams, because I've said in here many times: we're not against profits, but the fact that you're coming in, as a Nationals MP, and trying to make out that you're concerned about people in the bush, and you come in with an interjection—

Senator Williams interjecting—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and happy to acknowledge what you're saying is that you're happy—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Rhiannon, you will direct your comments through the chair. And order on my right, at the same time.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The comments that were just delivered in the Senate as an interjection are informative, because I have said in here many times that I and the Greens are not against profits that don't exploit people and leave them in misery.

What is happening in this housing market at the present time is shocking. Those figures that I've just shared with the chamber are disgraceful, because we can see how they're driving inequality in this country—inequality that results in so many people not having a home. Let's remember: we're all about to go home and see our loved ones, and we've got a bed and a home to go to. But tonight there'll be about 200 people who do not have a home, and—I said it earlier and I'll say it again—as we are a rich country, that is simply unacceptable.

We know those property speculators, investors and developers, as I said, won't give up without a fight. The Greens are ready to take them on. We must reclaim housing as a human right. We need governments committed to homes for all, and that's what we should all be behind.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to address the issue of remote Aboriginal housing a bit later in my remarks but, to enable continuity for the millions of people who read Hansard daily, I will continue along the same theme. The future of the remote housing program is absolutely critical. I know we had a debate on this in this chamber earlier this week, when Senator Scullion presented some information and my colleagues Senator Rhiannon and Senator Siewert outlined the Greens' view on that. But certainly from a Queensland perspective—I'll restrict my remarks to Queensland in this context—it is absolutely critical that this is resolved as soon as possible.

We all know that for a multitude of reasons governments of all persuasions and to a broader extent all of us in this parliament have failed repeatedly to adequately address and properly construct programs to meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not solely because we don't adequately listen to and enable local communities to have adequate control and input into those programs, but that's often a key reason. But this is one program, particularly in Queensland, where the benchmarks and the results have been incredibly positive. Frankly, it baffles me sometimes, given the amount of criticism of the outcomes of programs, that the government hasn't made a huge song and dance about the success of this program, immediately committed to renew it and then called on the state governments to add to it to make it even better to address the well-known longstanding problem of inadequate housing both in quality and quantity in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and deal with that more quickly because this is a program, in Queensland in particular, where all of the targets set have been met.

The most recent review of the national partnership on remote housing in Queensland showed that Queensland exceeded its targets for Indigenous employment in capital works, in property and tenancy management, and Queensland significantly exceeded its targets for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander business engagement in capital works. Queensland was seen to exceed its targets in new builds and exceed its targets significantly in refurbishment after some early problems, clearly getting a good result in housing quality for those that have been built. It is a good result in regards to maintenance, and a good result for community engagement, employment and business initiatives. So we have something that's actually working and yet the whole thing's been put at risk because of another tedious state-and-federal bunfight. Out of all the things to have a state-versus-federal-government bunfight about, it shouldn't be about something as fundamental as housing—not for anybody in the community, let alone Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, where that need has long been recognised.

The issue of overcrowding, particularly in remote Aboriginal communities and on the Torres Strait islands, is one that has been pointed to for years. We all know—and if we don't, we should—that if we can address that problem, as the program has started to do, we can also have significant positive flow-on effects in reducing some of the health problems that come with overcrowding, some of the child safety risks that come with overcrowding and some of the issues with school attendance and educational results that come with overcrowding.

So it's not simply about housing. It's about addressing a whole lot of social indicators and social needs on which we have not collectively as a parliament, as a body politic, made very good progress, despite all the talk about closing the gap. Surely—and I repeat this on behalf of the Greens, and particularly on behalf of Queenslanders—the federal government needs to be renewing that federal contribution for our state as quickly as possible. Or it can renew it for another two or three years and have its bunfight with the state government over that period and see if it can shame them into contributing more, if it doesn't think they're putting in their fair share. But don't put at risk all these existing jobs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in their own communities. It also has flow-on effects into the more general community.

I was in Cairns recently and met with people and had a look around an establishment that provides accommodation for people with long-term homelessness. They are predominantly, but not only, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from the Cape York and Torres Strait. The more the overcrowding problem returns to communities on Cape York, the more people will flow into Cairns. Or when people come into Cairns for medical or family or other reasons they will stay there rather than go back. So it will have flow-on impacts with regard to overt homelessness in the centre of Cairns and in other regional communities. It is similar with the community of Yarrabah that I visited recently. I met with the mayor and councillors there. They're not part of the remote housing program at the moment in Yarrabah, but they certainly have a desire to get support for addressing their housing problems. Some of their problems relate to addressing land title issues. They don't have the capacity, and they need that government support, and there is a clear Commonwealth role for that.

I urge the federal government—and will certainly express my support for them if they act—to provide the support and the funding that are needed, because the need is there. In the remote housing review, the Queensland government estimated that we still need an additional 1,380 houses by 2026 to address existing overcrowding and to accommodate population growth. That includes addressing houses that are only moderately overcrowded. I know that in remote areas the housing is more expensive, but that's still not a large number. That takes me back to the core of this piece of legislation, which is significantly flawed. It has lots of holes. But of course it is better than nothing, despite being a massive missed opportunity. Regarding the funding injection that needs to be provided more broadly to address homelessness and housing needs—and let me say, when we're talking about remote Aboriginal communities we are taking about homelessness by any definition, including people flowing into major cities and being homeless there—it's a lack of political will and a deliberate, explicit decision of those in power to prioritise other things over the basic issue of homelessness.

Just today we've been talking in this chamber about legislation that's potentially going to give $60 billion plus in tax cuts to large corporations. However much they may promise that some of that will be reinvested in Australia—and how much could we even believe those promises anyway?—it sure as hell is not going to be invested in homelessness, and it sure as hell is not going to be invested in remote Aboriginal communities, or even less-remote ones. So that money that is there now, which will not be available if this government's legislation goes through, could be invested now in key needs like housing and homelessness.

In Queensland, one in five Queenslanders are in severe financial stress because of unaffordable rents and mortgages; 20,000 Queenslanders are homeless and 29,000 are on the social housing waiting list. In the state election the Greens in Queensland made an explicit point of prioritising massively increasing funding to provide for the construction of social housing, including in remote areas and in regional areas. That addresses this most iniquitous of social ills. After having food and water the next most crucial thing somebody needs is a home, and that is not being prioritised.

As the Greens showed in the state election in Queensland, you can raise the revenue, you can invest it and it is an investment in infrastructure—both public infrastructure and social infrastructure—that will bring not just social good but significant economic and employment good. The employment opportunities that occur with significant expansion in housing construction is undeniable, and that includes in regional communities. The Greens specifically promote the investment and the use of public funds to build social housing in regional communities, which will provide employment and will address clear, existing identified longstanding needs.

We have 29,000 people on the social housing waiting list. It depends which communities you go to as to how long that list is, and that can fluctuate over time, but clearly we need to expand the social housing stock and the community housing stock more broadly. If we prioritise things differently, then we can make a much bigger dent in that much more quickly than what is happening with this National Housing and Homelessness Agreement that we're dealing with today.

A core part of this, and the reason why it's not prioritised, is that, unfortunately, politically and economically housing is basically treated as a commodity, as a potential mechanism to make profit rather than as a basic human need. Our tax system and so much of our funding is being focused away from simply providing people with a home, and instead enabling other people to make major profits by dealing with housing as a commodity, and we need to reverse that.

It's no surprise that when we've had some action at the state level with addressing the iniquitous impact of political donations to political parties the New South Wales government acted first, in part due to longstanding pressure from the Greens in New South Wales, including Senator Rhiannon when she was in that parliament. And now the Queensland Labor government, to their credit—I pay credit to Senator Ketter and his colleagues in the state Labor government—are acting to ban donations from property developers. It is a small step, and we need to broaden that significantly. It's because it's been recognised how deeply the development industry, and the property industry more broadly, has perverted our public policy in a very deep and insidious way. We've got a long way to go to reverse that. On behalf of the Greens from Queensland and elsewhere, that's something we will continue to give a lot of priority to.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contribution and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.