Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

There is merit in trialling the First Home Super Saver Scheme and the downsizer super contributions provisions. However, we all know that they are not holistic solutions to the housing affordability crisis, and I and my Nick Xenophon Team colleagues call on this government to show greater leadership on the issue of housing affordability.

Before I talk more broadly about the sheer scale of the housing affordability challenge in Australia, I will briefly mention some of the concerns I have in relation to the First Home Super Saver Scheme. Firstly, most of the benefits under the scheme will accrue to those who are in higher tax brackets, as those in lower tax brackets are unable to obtain the full advantage of the differential in tax paid between their marginal tax rate and the super contributions tax. Secondly, it is a demand-side measure when we do not have a demand-side problem with first home buyers. The problem facing the housing market is a combination of too much demand by investors in existing property and not enough supply. Australia saw the effect that the first home buyer grant had on housing prices—much of the benefit from the grant was simply transferred to the sellers through inflated prices across the market. There is no guarantee that this measure will not simply create the same outcome, although by a more convoluted mechanism. But, as I say, the trial has merit, and NXT reserves its right to come to a final position in the Senate.

I would like to talk more broadly about the housing crisis facing Australia. Our homelessness levels are growing and our young adults are now delaying or avoiding having children because they cannot afford to buy a home in which to raise a family. Housing affordability is causing massive distortions, not only economically but socially as well. Having a roof over your head is recognised by social service agencies as one of the four key factors in determining how well a person will negotiate life. It has also rapidly become a factor that divides the haves from the have-nots in Australia—a divide that is growing wider generation by generation. But 'affordable housing' means different things to different people. Sadly this is not an issue just on the eastern seaboard, although I do acknowledge that Sydney and Melbourne are incredibly expensive cities. It is something that affects people right across Australia. There are fewer employment opportunities and lower wages in regional areas, and rental supply is often quite tight.

In 2011 the census found that over 105,000 Australians were homeless, a massive increase of 17 per cent since the previous census. That figure is expected to rise when homelessness figures from the 2016 census are released. The St Vincent De Paul Society's recent report The ache for home notes that housing affordability is hitting the poorer sections of our population the hardest, with women over 55 being a group that is over-represented in homelessness statistics. Domestic violence is a piece of the puzzle, with the report noting that this social ill is a factor in 36 per cent of homelessness cases. Indeed, family violence is the leading cause of homelessness in my electorate of Mayo, where we have more people without homes than the state average, at 48 persons per 10,000 compared to 38 per 10,000 across South Australia.

But you don't have to come from a violent home to find it hard to break into the housing market. Aided by our taxation and financial systems, richer families with properties are able to bequeath or otherwise help their children get a financial head start in life so they can get a foot in the housing market door. It is a head start that poorer families have no way of matching.

With each passing generation, capital continues to be concentrated in a property class, and inequality rises, and the policy measures required to bridge the gap will become more onerous upon government finances. The problem only compounds as the population ages, because, in the past, paying off your own home had been the predominant pathway to financial security, particularly in retirement. Today, too many of our young people cannot afford to buy their first home—not even a bedsit. Worse still, many have given up because the cost of housing is considered so far beyond their reach. In simple terms, the up-front cost of housing for the ordinary Australian has increased from almost three times their household income in 1980 to almost 9½ times their household income in 2016. Homeownership is declining, falling from 57 per cent of adults being homeowners in 2002 to just over 51 per cent in 2014. This decline is more marked among first home owners, with the rate of homeownership dropping from 38.7 per cent in 2002 to 29.2 per cent in 2014.

Just recently, the consumer advocate group CHOICE and its partners National Shelter and NATO released the report Unsettled: life in Australia's private rental market. This report showed that in the decade to 2013-14 the number of Australians renting rose from 25 to 31 per cent, nearly 40 per cent of renters are under 35 and half of them have personal incomes of less than $35,000. More than 80 per cent have a no-fixed-term lease or leases that are for 12 months or less, and 20 per cent are on month-to-month rolling leases. This is incredibly instable housing. CHOICE claimed that this was leading to greater insecurity among renters, with half of those surveyed admitting that they were reluctant to exercise their rights, such as asking for household repairs, because they were worried about being blacklisted and they were worried about not being given another extension on their lease.

Housing insecurity is a documented factor in entrenched poverty. Low-income private renters are more likely to move frequently, which affects their employment and their social networks. It also affects children's schooling because children are moved from school to school as families try to find an affordable place to live. Where does this all lead? Again, I say that it leads to a growing divide between the haves and the have-nots that is arresting the full development of our country. Some might argue that there have always been haves and have-nots and it is not the role of government to intervene. This view presumes an equality of opportunity that doesn't exist.

I cannot help but notice that in the generation since 1984, when negative gearing was introduced, we've seen a huge distortion in the housing market. The government intervened in Australia's financial markets then, and it needs to do so again now. What that leadership will look like and what it will take into account in the reality of today's market are yet to be decided. Certainly, there is much discussion by the public on how we can address this. The government most certainly needs to play a greater role than the limited measures before us in these two bills. An increasing number of Australian people are missing out on the social and economic benefits of homeownership, and as a country we are all suffering from their lack of prosperity. This merit has trial, but, as I've said, much more needs to be done, and I look to government to work with the entire parliament to address housing affordability.

See this speech in context