Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I support the motion. Australia's housing crisis is surely one of the most important policy debates that this parliament needs to have. I say 'parliament' as there is no apparent prospect of the government having this debate. They have absented themselves from the field. We have heard from the member for Newcastle that the 2011 census statistics showed 105,000 people were homeless. I fear it will be worse when the next census comes out.

As we know, homelessness has complex causes. Much of it is caused by housing stress and people falling out of the housing market. In much of Australia, we are in a diabolical mess. Over the last few decades, we have stuffed up the housing market to the point where it takes 10 to 12 times—or, for young people, 15 times—average weekly earnings to purchase a house in Melbourne or Sydney. I know from doorknocking that this is a powerful discussion point with young people in my electorate. It is that core question of: how will I ever afford a house? Ownership rates for young people aged between 25 and 34 have spiralled down from 60 per cent to 48 per cent. Generation Rent are not doing well as renters either. In fact, between 1994-95 and 2013-14 private renters have seen a 62 per cent increase in average weekly housing costs. That is compared to only 42 per cent for owners with mortgages. The market is especially diabolical where we want people to live—that is, in major cities near employment.

These price rises may be the subject of talk at the dinner table for those of us in the housing market, but no society should want to see prices rise in the way we have in the last couple of decades. We have lost our way. Housing is a social good to house people. Placing too much focus on investment and profits is forgetting its core role.

We have heard from the minister for Newcastle—the member for Newcastle, rather; the minister for Newcastle sounds good too, but let's see where we go—but there is nothing of substance to say. There is no minister. But that is a common trend. I remember there was a period when we stopped believing in science and had no minister for science, but eventually rationality returned, Tony left and we now have a minister for science. Perhaps when the Prime Minister's turn is up, we will see a minister for housing return, because 'get rich parents' is not a policy.

The government, of course, is wedded to policies that make things worse—in particular, tax system arrangements that fuel investor demand and contribute to ongoing, unsustainable price rises. Through the election campaign, we heard a ridiculous scare campaign, and we had a touch of it earlier from the otherwise earnest member for Bennelong. I agree with the previous member that this is a complex policy area. I have been a mayor of a major council. I actually ran metropolitan planning for a while in Victoria for both sides of politics and managed the land supply in Melbourne. Both sides of politics have done very well in managing the land supply and keeping affordability up, but there are supply and demand factors. Unavoidably, the logical conclusion of saying we need cooperation between the Commonwealth, state and local governments is that we need national leadership and a coordinated strategy. Random cuts and randomly distributed budget initiatives—in which someone has a good idea or thinks, 'Oh, we haven't got anything in housing this year'—are not a national strategy.

There are many levers that sit with the Commonwealth that need coherent thought. The reforms to taxation arrangements—negative gearing and capital gains tax—are some of them. I am proud that we have put forward a thought-out policy on this. They have been sacred cows for too long. It is difficult politics at times, but great policy. The majority of economists also agree, including think tanks and Joe Hockey in his retirement speech. One Malcolm Turnbull, before he became Prime Minister, used to think this was a good idea and that reform was needed. The consensus was that these arrangements increase demand, push up prices, reduce financial stability—as the Financial System Inquiry and the Henry review made clear—and reduce investment in the economy and more productive assets.

We do not want a society in which people are shovelling all their spare cash into the housing market to jack up prices, because it is the best tax break around. We want them to put money into more productive uses in the economy. Overwhelmingly, the benefits accrue to the top 10 to 20 per cent of people. On banking regulation, we have heard that there is a decent rationale for APRA's changes to moderate lending practices, but try telling a young person trying to buy a house that it has had the desired impact—as the member for Bennelong did.

The final point I would make is that, in a new strategy, we need new ideas. We need to see the Commonwealth incentivising actions by state and local government and working in partnership. With rental housing, larger numbers of renters means we need to rethink how renters are treated, including national rental standards and more secure tenure. We need more long-term, affordable rental housing and a nationally recognised asset class of community housing. We need promotion of more and longer term investments, perhaps by superannuation funds, in a stable environment; national regulation of community housing providers; and inclusionary zoning—a percentage of affordable housing. National leadership is what we need. (Time expired)

See this speech in context