Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

PENDER () (): I'm pleased that we're dealing with the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills today. Though I have some concerns with the way the government is approaching this, I'm glad that the parliament will be doing more to support those who rely on affordable and social housing.

My own community in Wentworth is one where the cost of housing is forcing many people and families out of the area. This includes many people who are not able to work and who rely on government support, and also many people who work in the area. It genuinely saddens me that some teachers at our schools, nurses in our hospitals and health clinics, and defence personnel at HMAS Watson and the Victoria Barracks aren't able to live where they want to in our electorate. I recently met with Kate Timmins from the B Miles Women's Foundation. This is a foundation that helps prevent women from falling into homelessness and helps resolve and prevent homelessness. She told me heartbreaking stories of nurses in my electorate who are sleeping in cars or sleeping in caves—it's hard to believe, but this has actually happened in this local area—because they cannot afford to pay their rent. It is absolutely catastrophic and a terrible blight our community.

I welcome this bill and I hope that it does is much good as the minister promises. But, as I said, I do have some concerns, particularly with regard to off-budget spending. This concern is not limited to the Housing Australia Future Fund; it also relates to National Reconstruction Fund and the Rewiring the Nation fund, which collectively account for $45 billion in public money that will be invested and expended off-budget. It relates to the existing off-budget investment vehicles, including the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Northern Australia Investment Facility and the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific.

While there may be legitimate policy reasons for an entity to sit outside the Commonwealth budget, it is also legitimate that there are appropriate standards of transparency, oversight and accountability in place. I believe that the existing standards are inadequate and it would be preferable if action were taken in this parliament to establish a joint committee which would oversee off-budget spending, approve new off-budget vehicles, and ensure these organisations are operating efficiently and reporting effectively, and that appropriate appointments are made to boards and executive positions. I believe a committee like this would improve the accountability of off-budget entities and raise the unfortunately low standards of oversight and transparency that we have for them.

I also want to emphasise that action on affordable housing is not the same as action on housing affordability. Affordability is an issue of deep concern to Australians right across the country now, from Wentworth to Wanneroo. It's a concern that young people never know if they will ever be able to afford their own homes. I was walking up the street the other day in Wentworth and a young man approached me. We were talking about his circumstances, the election and things, and he said that he and his partner were moving overseas. They had well-paying jobs, but they just did not believe, even with a dual income and well-paying jobs, that they could ever buy a house in the area they wanted to live in, and they felt there were greater opportunities in the USA. These are people actually working for the public sector, in jobs that make a real difference to the area. It's not just the young people who are concerned about this; I hear this as much from parents and grandparents who are concerned that their children and grandchildren will not have the same opportunities as they did when they were growing up.

The sad truth is that we have seen very little substantive action on housing affordability by either major party for many years. It is not because this industry was complex or because there is uncertainty about the right policies or instruments. We know what the problems are. We have known for many years, and it's not complicated. If the number of people wanting to buy homes increases faster than the number of homes available does, the prices will rise. If that problem persists over years and decades, as it has, then homes will be ever less affordable. The economic and social consequences of this are varied and extend well beyond homeownership. It means that young people must save for longer to afford a deposit, mortgages are larger, and households are more sensitive to changes in interest rates. There is also convincing evidence that people defer having a family until they have secured a deposit and a home. They are less likely to have children, and those who do tend to have smaller families. Australia's falling fertility rate is of real concern to anyone who thinks about the long-term future of our country, and limited housing is one of the most important drivers.

Expensive housing also means that people are less willing to change jobs if it means a long commute or having to sell the family home or relocate to another city or state. People are giving up opportunities for higher wages, and our economy is forgoing to benefits of greater productivity because housing is simply too expensive.

It also means people are less willing to take a chance and start a new business, even if they've got a great idea, because it's just too risky when you need to service a large mortgage. People put it off. They say they'll pursue their dream once their mortgage is paid down and they're in a better financial position. Those that take the next step and explore the financials of establishing a new business are often deterred when they see the cost of commercial and industrial space. It's not just residential real estate that is eye-wateringly expensive. It's no wonder that Australia's rate of startups is so much lower than it should be.

Expensive housing also means that a great number of people aren't able to live where they want to live. Lots of Australians work in CBDs but live outside the CBDs and have long daily commutes. Sometimes that is a choice; people want to live near their families or near the beach, or want an acreage. But often it is not. Long commutes are carbon intensive. Urban sprawl is carbon intensive. The infrastructure to support communities spread out over huge suburban areas is carbon intensive. Forcing people to live further away from where they want to be has awful consequences for our environment.

And expensive housing produces inequality. Those Australians whose parents own a home, whose parents let them live rent free while saving for a deposit or whose parents run a 'bank of mum and dad' all have a tremendous generational advantage. It's an advantage that works against people who are smart, hardworking and talented but don't have the financial backing that some others do, and, when they're bidding for the same properties, it can make the difference between who wins and who loses.

This has been a long list, but I think it's vitally important to recognise that housing affordability is one of the most important issues facing our country, and the answer to this problem is, on balance, more supply. I agree with those who say that state and local governments are more directly responsible for alleviating supply constraints than the federal government. That is true. But it's also true that they're not acting, in many cases, and those who are acting aren't doing it fast enough, which is why we want the federal government to take a leadership role on this.

I commend the government for the Housing Accord because I think this is absolutely a step in the right direction, but I want the government to go further. It should provide significant financial incentives to encourage other levels of government to adopt policies that grow the housing pipeline, especially in areas of high demand and closer to links, with walkable streets, cycleways and public transport. It should work with the states to remove taxes that stop housing mobility, such as stamp duty, and replace that tax with land tax, which would be more efficient and more effective and a better way of ensuring that people can move between housing, which is so important for labour mobility. And it needs to raise its ambition in terms of the number of houses that need to be built in this country, because one million houses is absolutely not enough. It's a big number, but if we are going to get to an OECD average of houses or dwellings per thousand people then we need to have more houses—and we need to be building more houses. That is how we will create long-term affordable housing.

The productivity benefits of this would be enormous and largely, if not entirely, offset the fiscal impact. I believe the Treasurer should also ask the Productivity Commission to undertake an inquiry into what supply policies would have the largest impact and what the potential financial implications would be.

The failures in housing are a drag on population growth, a drag on economic growth, a drag on labour mobility, a drag on innovation, a major driver of our carbon-intensive travel and an intractable source of inequality within and across generations. Now is the time to act.

See this speech in context