Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Sharma, I listened intently to your comments there. I really respected you in your previous life; you were a magnificent ambassador for Australia, but, by crikey, you've been dealt a dud on this one, mate. I still hold you in high respect, Senator Sharma, but I have to challenge some of your comments.

On saying that, the bill before us today, the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024, is yet another classic example of the crisis facing those opposite. Every time the government comes forward with a proposal that facilitates the construction of more homes for Australians that desperately need somewhere to live, somewhere to sleep at night, those opposite can't help themselves. For the last three years, they couldn't help themselves, and here we are in the first week, and they still can't help themselves. Their first response is to resort to their deeply held ideology that is opposed to both social housing and industry super funds. And, boy oh boy, haven't we seen that in this chamber? We witnessed it every time one of them stood up, every single time any one of them was tapped on the shoulder to make a contribution and was told, 'Here are your speaking lines'—the ideological hate of social housing and the ideological hate towards unions.

I do want to say this: I am proudly a member of a super fund that is an industry fund. I have been a member of that industry fund—it used to be called TWUSUPER—since 1986. When I came into the Senate, in 2005, I was offered the government one, to which I kindly and respectfully said: 'No, thank you. I want to stay with my industry super fund.' Do you know why? It was because I knew all the directors of the super fund, because it was made up of half union and half industry, so there was this full trust in working together to implement the best outcomes for young transport workers when they would, finally, have the need for, and would seek, a decent and respectful retirement. So, Senator Sharma, I challenge you on some of the statements you make.

Another challenge—I know a couple of the directors of the CFMEU super fund, and I'll tell you now that I'd back in Dave Noonan any day before any one of that lot on that side, if he were looking after my super fund. I can tell you that.

Those opposite really are in a mess when it comes to superannuation and housing. On the one hand, they want young Australians to be able to empty out their retirement income account to cover the deposit on a house. But, on the other hand, they actively seek to prevent industry super funds from investing in badly needed social housing. I grew up in social housing, and I have a soft spot for social housing. Well—I hate to tell them, but someone has to—you just can't have it both ways. It hasn't even been three months since the last election, an election which I can proudly say endorsed the government's measures that will increase the amount of social and other housing available to Australians that can't find somewhere to live. It is almost like the election on 3 May didn't happen. I say to those opposite respectfully: have you seriously learned nothing? Australians want their housing challenges addressed, and they want action now. They didn't vote for those opposite to stand in the way of building more houses. Yet here we are, less than three months later, and it's the same tired old Liberal Party and the other half, the tail that wags the dog, the Nats, with their same old ideological objection to taking action.

Those opposite seriously have bad form. During the last parliament, they spent months opposing each and every measure the government introduced to tackle the housing crisis. Who can forget how they stood in the way of the Albanese government's Help to Buy program—remember that?—during the last parliament? Imagine how ideologically obsessed you have to be to stand in the way of helping 40,000 Australians into homeownership. It's hard to believe, isn't it? But, unfortunately, this is what we've had. They also stood on the way of Labor's build-to-rent laws—remember that one?—which were aimed at getting more than 80,000 rental properties into the construction pipeline. If that wasn't enough, they also fought to block the Albanese government's $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. That $10 billion program supports the delivery of tens of thousands of affordable homes. Now imagine being determined to prevent those homes being built. I can't comprehend someone waking up in the morning and striving to achieve that outcome in their day. To me, that is one real sick puppy.

Which brings us to the bill before us today. Not being content with opposing the creation of the Housing Australia Future Fund, the opposition now want to control how the money is spent, or, more precisely, control which organisations are allowed to partner with the HAFF to deliver social housing to those Australians that desperately need it. The bill combines two of the Liberal Party's great ideological obsessions, as I said earlier: the hatred of social housing and the hysterical opposition to industry super funds. Unlike those opposite, Labor knows that safe and affordable housing is essential to the security and dignity of all Australians. We have a suite of policies and legislation that addresses the challenges in each and every aspect of the complex housing portfolio.

For a generation of Australians, homeownership feels too far away and being a renter feels too insecure. May I say it was the Howard government that started creating this mess 20 years ago. The Howard government, their hero. We've been feeling this for a generation, not just the last couple of months. It is such a disappointment, not just for those of us on this side but also for the hardworking Australians chasing the dream of homeownership, that after three years it's still, 'No, no, no,' from those opposite. Senator Bragg and the opposition have gone straight back to form. It's disappointing that, after an election in which Australians resoundingly rejected the politics of delay and destruction, the kind of politics peddled by those opposite relentlessly, Senator Bragg is once again trying to stand in the way of real progress on housing. I should say, I suppose, old habits die hard.

If only the Housing Investment Probity Bill did what it says on the lid. Senator Bragg's bill does nothing for housing, it does nothing for investment and, oddly enough, it does nothing for probity either—I shouldn't be surprised. His one-page housing agenda—yes, one page—will do only one thing, and that is stand the way. This is just another cynical attempt by those opposite to play politics while doing nothing to help address our nation's housing crisis. While we're focused on building more homes and tackling the housing crisis, the opposition would rather waste time on a madcap anti-superannuation campaign that lets Senator Bragg hit all his favourite words on his housing bingo card—phrases like 'contingent liability', 'availability payments' and 'boondoggle'. 'Boondoggle' is a particular favourite. While Senator Bragg is showing us all of the nifty jargon he picked up working in the finance sector, flicking through his thesaurus, hoping he might hit on a new housing policy, do you know what we're doing on this side of the chamber? We're building homes. We're building homes everywhere from Blacktown to Bassendean, no matter what Senator Bragg makes up over there.

In Senator Bragg's own state of New South Wales, we, the Albanese government, are delivering more than 3,000 social and affordable homes thanks to the first round of the Housing Australia Future Fund he so despises. And, thanks to the latest round, we are delivering another 1,500 social and affordable homes in New South Wales. Here's the best bit, Senator Bragg, and you mob over there: we're going to keep doing it. We're going to keep delivering new homes through programs like the HAFF because we know that every Australian deserves a roof over their head. Every Australian deserves a safe place to call home. It's no wonder Senator Bragg and the rest of his ragtag team over there are so keen on trying to cut down our record on housing, given what they did—or didn't do—when they were in government.

Let's be clear: Labor is investing $43 billion in housing—not million, billion. You don't need to be an Ernst & Young accountant to know that that's eight times what the coalition invested in housing over almost a decade in office. Labor has helped more than 175,000 Australians into homeownership with five per cent deposits. The coalition helped 60,000. Us, 175,000; that mob, 60,000. That's almost—for those who can't count—three times as many in the same period. Labor is delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes, 28,000 of which are in construction and planning right now. The coalition, on the other hand, built only 370 under their policies—not 37,000, not 3,700, but 370. And it's no wonder they didn't deliver more new housing, because for most of the decade they were in government, they didn't even have a housing minister. So instead of introducing a bill today that will actually deliver more homes, or a bill that has some resemblance to a housing policy, Senator Bragg is seeking to pull apart Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund and have a crack at superannuation funds for daring to invest in social and affordable housing that Australians desperately need.

I know that this is an ideological obsession of those opposite, sadly. I know it's terrifying to them that Australian workers might be able to build themselves up for retirement thanks to Aussie superannuation funds. What's even more terrifying to them is that working people might have a voice in how their superannuation funds are invested and managed. But we've made it very clear all along: superannuation funds are required to comply with strict governance standards. They are made to act in the best financial interests of members. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority engages with superannuation funds on their governance arrangements and ensures that their boards meet the necessary and appropriate standards.

But the model that Senator Bragg is trying to target here—the equal representation model that superannuation boards have equal numbers of employer representatives and member representatives—is not new; I just talked about it. This is a longstanding feature of the superannuation system, and it means that the perspectives of both employers and working people are represented—shock, horror! As I'm sure Senator Bragg is aware, all superannuation fund trustee boards have to assure themselves that their directors meet the necessary standards required of them, including the fitness and propriety test.

Now, APRA has already imposed additional licence conditions on the trustees for Cbus, requiring them to engage an independent expert to assess whether governance requirements are being met. This is the proper work of the independent prudential regulator. This is APRA's role; it's not Senator Bragg's role, as much as he might wish it was.

Those opposite are trying to paint a very mangled picture with this bill. It relies on a conspiracy theory entirely of Senator Bragg's making. But, disappointingly for the senator opposite, the funding of social and affordable housing under the Housing Australia Future Fund is not a political process. The Housing Australia Future Fund is managed not by the government of the day but by Housing Australia. Housing Australia is an independent statutory authority with an independent and expert board. Funding decisions are taken independently by the Housing Australia board, consistent with their legislated investment mandate. So, while Senator Bragg is off on his campaign against superannuation and off on his campaign against social and affordable housing, we, the Albanese government, are getting on with the job.