Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We might have begun a new parliament, but it seems like nothing much has changed with those opposite. What we see with this bill is the same tired attempt to play politics, with ideological attacks on superannuation and unions, at a time when Australians are crying out for real action on housing. While the Albanese government is focused on building more homes and delivering more affordable homes across the country, those opposite are once again choosing to waste the time of this Senate with legislation that does nothing to address the actual challenges in front of us. Frankly, we are sick and tired of it. Australians who are struggling to get into the housing market just want action on new homes.

Let me state this plainly and simply. This proposed bill reveals a deep misunderstanding, or perhaps a deliberate misrepresentation, of how both the Housing Australia Future Fund and Australia's superannuation system work. It also repeats a series of misleading claims about Cbus Super and its relationship with the CFMEU—claims that, again, do nothing to further the national interest and everything to serve a narrow political agenda.

This bill shows Senator Bragg has no idea how the Housing Australia Future Fund even works, so let's start with some of the facts. Cbus Super is not the CFMEU. Cbus is a profit-to-member industry superannuation fund and one of Australia's best-performing funds, with more than 900,000 members and $90 billion in funds under management. It exists to deliver strong long-term retirement outcomes for its hardworking members—not 'bloodsuckers'—many of whom have spent decades working on construction sites, in trades, in building and in allied industries, building our homes.

Cbus has a longstanding commitment and has been a leading fund, in fact, in providing investment capital to deliver affordable and social housing in Australia. In fact, since 2019, Cbus has invested more than $150 million in Housing-Australia-issued bonds—including at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when it provided construction finance for more than 150 apartments being built for a community housing provider. They, just like many other profit-to-member funds, do this solely for the best financial interests of members, as required by the law, aiming for this through a diversified portfolio of which investment in housing is just one part.

This is not theory and it is not ideology. In the case of their investment in construction finance, it is real, tangible investment that delivers real homes for real people. So to suggest, as this bill does, that Cbus is somehow unfit to engage in affordable housing finance is not only wrong; it is offensive to the hardworking Australians whose superannuation savings have helped make these projects possible.

I would also like to draw the chamber's attention to the former member for Deakin, Michael Sukkar, in his former role as the Minister for Housing. In 2020 he issued a media release to announce the pilot program for additional community housing. In this media release, he acknowledged the important role of Cbus in supporting a joint debt funding package with Housing Australia—formerly the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation—to deliver social and affordable housing in New South Wales.

I move now to the HAFF. This bill is built on the flawed assumption that super funds like Cbus are recipients of HAFF funding. Let me be clear: they are not. The Housing Australia Future Fund does not distribute taxpayer money to superannuation funds. That is not how the Housing Australia Future Fund works. What actually happens is this: super funds, which must act in the best financial interests of their members, may choose to provide debt financing to community providers or project proponents. These proponents, in turn, may be applying for support from the HAFF. The superannuation fund is not a recipient of HAFF money; it is a co-investor, a lender, an external financier. To legislate to prohibit the HAFF from supporting any project that happens to have received private financing from a particular superannuation fund, as Senator Bragg proposes, is not just bad policy; it would severely limit the pool of investment available to help build social and affordable housing in our country. And, as we have already heard time and time again in this place, and just in the last two days of the 48th Parliament, this country desperately needs more housing.

This is yet another example of those opposite blocking, instead of supporting, the building of affordable homes for Australians—blockers, not builders. At a time when Australia is facing a serious housing shortage, when we need all levels of government, all sources of capital and all sectors working together, this bill would drive capital away. It would make it harder to get housing projects off the ground—blocking, not building. To address housing affordability, it is necessary to tackle issues around supply. As the Australian population increases, we need to build more dwellings and more infrastructure. This bill would in fact do the opposite of what we are all seeking to do.

I turn now to Cbus's governance. There were some concerns raised about that. Let us also be clear about why this bill has come about. It is because of questions about how Cbus is governed, given its association with the CFMEU. In some senses, for those watching in the general public, it is fair to probe this question, given that this government, in the last term, did act on serious governance concerns with that union. Let's clarify those concerns. Cbus is not run by the CFMEU. The CFMEU does not own Cbus. The fund is overseen by a 14-person trustee board made up of two independent directors, six employer nominated directors and six union nominated directors. This is an equal representation model that is a longstanding, bipartisan feature of Australia's superannuation system, which we should all be proud of, because it has delivered long-term, secure returns for the retirement of Australian workers. It ensures both employers and workers have a seat at the table. All directors of funds must meet the same high standards of governance, integrity and accountability. Under law, superannuation fund directors are subject to a strict fit and proper person test. They are required to act in the best financial interests of members—not unions, not employers, not government.

The prudential regulator, APRA, monitors this rigorously. In fact, APRA has recently imposed additional licence conditions on both Cbus and BUSSQ, requiring them to engage an independent expert to assess whether their governance arrangements meet legal and regulatory standards. This is how oversight should work: through an independent regulator, not through ad hoc legislation in this chamber driven by political vendettas.

And let's not forget about this important additional fact: in the current rounds of HAFF funding, Cbus has not participated in any transactions. That's right—despite all the noise, the bill is targeting a fund that has not even participated in HAFF funded projects to date.

Cbus, like any other responsible investor, will assess on a case-by-case basis whether a project aligns with its members' financial interests, and that is how it should be. So what then is this bill all about? Well, we don't have to guess; Senator Bragg and his colleagues have made it very clear. This bill is about undermining union influence. It is about reviving tired culture war battles that the Australian public have well and truly had enough of and moved past.

But let's not conflate that process with the operation of our superannuation system or with the Housing Australia Future Fund. They are separate issues and they must be treated as such. To use concerns about union conduct as a pretext for gutting investment in affordable housing is not only unjustified; it is reckless and dangerous because the stakes here are too high. We are facing a national housing shortage. Australians are struggling to buy their first home. Renters are being squeezed harder than ever. Essential workers—teachers, nurses and early childhood educators—are being priced out of the communities that they serve. That is why the Albanese government is doing the hard work to build more homes.

We've legislated the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund—the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade. We've committed to delivering 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the fund's first five years. We're delivering 10,000 affordable rental homes through the National Housing Accord and incentivising the states and territories to match it. We've created the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator to deliver more homes more quickly. And we've made the single largest investment ever in remote housing for First Nations communities.

We're supporting renters through the first back-to-back increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in 30 years. We're backing renters and first home buyers. We've expanded the Home Guarantee Scheme, helping more than 150,000 Australians get into the housing market sooner. And we've brought together National Cabinet to drive reforms, like a better deal for renters, so that the more than seven million Australians who rent can have a fairer, more secure experience. That is our focus, not playing political games, not attacking super funds and not dragging the public debate into the weeds of culture wars. We're getting on with the job of reaching our ambitious target of 1.2 million homes by 2029.

The Housing Australia Future Fund is not a political process. It is an independent investment vehicle administered by the board of Housing Australia in accordance with a strict investment mandate. More than 670 applications were received in the first round of the HAFF, representing more than 50,000 dwellings. Those applications are being assessed on merit. Funding will go to the most competitive, well-governed and impactful projects. And that's what this bill fundamentally and wilfully misunderstands or seeks to undermine. It wants to pick and choose who can participate in building Australia's housing future based on ideology rather than merit, and that is just not how good policy is made.

If Senator Bragg is serious about addressing Australia's housing crisis, then I urge those opposite to stop playing political games and start supporting policies that will actually make a difference. Pass the legislation. Support the programs. Back the investment. Australians are tired of division; they want cooperation, they want delivery and they want outcomes. We've seen that in the resounding result in the May federal election, which was a historic election outcome. Australians want governments that build homes; they don't want governments that argue about it.

Superannuation is one of Australia's greatest policy successes. It delivers dignity in retirement; it pools our national savings; and it provides long-term capital for infrastructure, housing and job-creating projects. Superannuation funds, including industry funds, operate under strict laws, rigorous regulatory oversight and a clear duty to act in the best financial interests of members. The equal representation model has delivered strong performance and stable governance for decades. We should not be debating whether or not to tear it down based on political expediency and ideology. Let's not waste this Senate's time targeting individual funds for doing their job, investing in Australia, creating homes and supporting workers. Let's call this bill out for what it is: a bad-faith attack on a system that works wrapped in the language of accountability but fuelled by ideology. Let's return our focus to what matters: governing and delivering for Australians; building homes for Australians; and helping Australians find a home, live in dignity and retire with security. Thank you.