Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

To conclude this debate, I remind the Senate and those listening that we are debating a matter of urgency—that a national affordable housing strategy should be developed involving all levels of government. I remind the Senate that statistics now show that households on an average Australian income can no longer afford to buy an average-priced home. Home ownership is fast moving out of reach for many in the next generation and, indeed, for many in the current generation. Private rental costs are also causing immense housing-induced income stress for many Australians, as are the very long waiting lists for public and community housing. ABS statistics show that the proportion of first home owners as a percentage of all homebuyers has dropped dramatically from 67 per cent in 1977 to 23 per cent in 2002. We are now down to a very small minority of the people purchasing a home who are first homebuyers. There is a crisis here.

I do not in any way say that there is not more the states can do. I would agree with Senator Fifield: there is more that the states can do. According to Senator Fifield, the Commonwealth government has done all it can in its capacity, through its various measures. I am afraid, if that is all it can do, then that is a very clear sign that this government is getting very tired and running out of ideas, because it needs to do something.

The first thing it should do is recognise that the things that are in its field of endeavour and capacity are not sufficient and in some cases may inadvertently be making the problem worse through market distortions. The reason you have a national cooperative strategy is to look at all these areas: to see if you can make the billion dollars of the first homebuyers’ money more targeted, more effective and noninflationary; to see if you can ensure that private rental assistance is spent in the most efficient way; to look at whether or not the totality of the enormous amounts that are provided to people who are not lower income, which is the negative gearing subsidy, can be changed—not abolished, scrapped or unilaterally withdrawn, to reassure Senator Ronaldson, but refocused so that it can be used in a way that will produce affordable housing outcomes.

There are many ideas out there. I would again mention the recently released proposal from the National Affordable Housing Summit group. They have already had their summit; they do not need another one. That group involves the Housing Industry Association that Senator Ronaldson quoted, community housing groups like National Shelter and the Tenants Union, and trade union groups like the ACTU and the CFMEU. They put up a proposal about a national affordable rental incentive scheme to boost the supply of affordable rental housing by at least 15,000 homes a year, so that the various incentives around—the billions and billions of dollars that are spent—might actually be spent in a way that provides incentives where affordable housing is part of the outcome. There was a whole range of different proposals that were released just yesterday by the Australians for Affordable Housing coalition. I am not endorsing all of them unequivocally, although I think many of them are good. But let us sit down and let us recognise that there needs to be national leadership and a national strategy—a national and consistent approach—that recognises that this is an urgent issue and a serious matter that is leading to very wide and growing inequality amongst Australians. If the federal government cannot recognise that there is a need for action in that regard, then frankly they really seriously are out of touch.

Question negatived.