Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

It really is a delight to follow my colleague Senator Cash, who spoke extraordinarily eloquently in relation to the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024—which was put forward by my good friend Senator Andrew Bragg, from New South Wales—and who made a number of points which she has repeatedly made in this place over a number of years.

I want to make some preliminary comments about the Housing Australia Future Fund. I have a deep belief that there is something concerning about the establishment of off-balance-sheet funds of this nature. It troubles me that, when these sorts of funds are set up, what happens is a government goes out and borrows $10 billion—you've got to borrow that money upfront—and then the idea is that, from the returns generated from those borrowed funds, it'll use the investment returns to invest into whatever the social purpose is. Certainly, housing is a valid social purpose; however, you are subject to some real risks.

One of the risks is that the investment returns on the fund don't cover the cost of the borrowing. The second risk is that you are forced by mandates, which are introduced as part of the establishment of the fund, to spend funds even if you don't necessarily have a concrete purpose or the best purpose to spend those funds within the mandated timeframe. That limits flexibility. The third risk is that it distorts the budget position with respect to government finances, because it's an off-balance-sheet fund. Those three issues with these sorts of off-balance-sheet funds concern me as a matter of principle, and I'll certainly keep raising my concerns with respect to these types of funds. I think we're finding, with the Housing Australia Future Fund, some of the weaknesses inherent in these sorts of off-balance-sheet funds.

I don't understand why the government can't simply appropriate funds during the course of a financial year and spend the funds through NGOs providing social housing or through state governments—whatever the mechanism and however they want to spend it—but do it year to year and give estimates through the forward estimates as to what the future funding commitments would be. From my perspective, cut out the middleman, cut out the off-balance-sheet fund, and just appropriate the funds and contribute them to whatever the purpose is. So I have that philosophical concern.

In terms of how the Housing Australia Future Fund has worked in practice, there are obviously some real concerns about whether or not the taxpayer is getting bang for their buck and also whether or not people who are facing the reality of a chronic shortage of affordable housing in this country at this point in time are being given the opportunity to address those circumstances. As Senator Cash said, it is deeply disturbing that two years after the announcement of the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion fund, the latest information we got out of estimates was that only 17 houses had been built—absolutely extraordinary.

Another thing to observe in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund is something we learnt through the Senate estimates process. I'm not sure why we have to find these things out through the Senate estimates process. Why can't the HAFF just tell us on a month-to-month basis? How many houses are you building and how many properties are you acquiring? Tell us. Be transparent. Give us a dashboard of what you're actually achieving. We shouldn't have to draw this out, like pulling teeth, through the Senate estimates process. Actually tell us how you're performing.

Anyway, my colleagues have used the Senate estimates process to great effect and found, in February of this year, that—this is very curious—the fund had acquired and converted 340 houses from existing builds. If my math is right, that is 20 times the number of houses that have actually been built. The Housing Australia Future Fund actually went onto the market and acquired houses in the market. Twenty times as many houses were acquired as were built. That wasn't my expectation when this legislation was debated in this place; I thought this was about facilitating the construction of new housing supply. Yet those are the figures. Two years after the announcement of the Housing Australia Future Fund, it's only built 17 houses, but it's gone out into the market and it's acquired and converted 340 houses. It's acquired 20 times more houses on the market than it has actually built. Presumably, when it acquired those houses on the market, it was doing so in competition with other Australians who were potentially looking at putting in an offer in relation to acquiring those houses. What chances did they have going up against the Housing Australia Future Fund? It's quite extraordinary.

Then there's this phrase that's used, 'acquired and converted'. I'm not sure what 'converted' means. I'd be much obliged if the minister or someone could contact my office and tell me what 'converted' means. I understand what 'renovated' means. Maybe the 340 houses that were acquired required renovations. I know a colleague sitting in this chamber has a construction background and gave a very good maiden speech last night—I'm paying you a compliment, Senator Whitten! I'm not sure what this 'converted' means. Does it simply mean converted from private ownership to public ownership? Is that what 'converted' means? I don't know what 'converted' means.

But what really causes me concern is that the Housing Australia Future Fund acquired on market 20 times more houses that it actually built. When it acquired those houses, it did so in competition with everyday Australians out there trying to purchase a house. Some of them were probably trying to purchase their first house. They were potentially also in competition with social enterprises trying to purchase houses. It's quite troubling. What's happening is really quite troubling.

This should be seen in the context of the incoming government brief provided by Treasury that says, notwithstanding Labor's promise to build 1.2 million homes by 2030—that's what Labor promised the Australian people during the course of the last election campaign. It promised that it would build 1.2 million new homes by 2030. Then, immediately after the election—which they won no doubt in part because of that promise and other matters—Treasury sent an incoming brief to the newly re-elected Albanese Labor government and said: 'You've no chance. You're not going to be able to build 1.2 million homes by 2030. It's pie in the sky.'

So we've got 17 newly constructed houses two years after this $10 billion fund was established. We've got 340 houses acquired and converted, whatever that means—20 times as many houses acquired as were actually built. Then we've got Treasury advising the government that there's no chance that 1.2 million new homes will be built by 2030. So we've got the trifecta. We've got the trifecta there in terms of really disturbing information that was not apparent to this chamber—it was not apparent to the Senate—at the time this legislation was introduced into the Australian parliament. It is really concerning. Just think about that. I'm sorry to belabour this point; I really am. But it just shocks me. Two years—a $10 billion fund in two years has constructed 17 houses. It's just extraordinary. And they've gone onto the market and acquired 340 houses—that's 20 times as many—in competition with everyday Australians. What chance does the everyday Australian have when they're up against this $10 billion government fund? No chance.

Then we have the issue which has been raised—and I really congratulate Senator Bragg for the work he's doing in relation to this really important portfolio matter. I really do congratulate him. I think he's doing a wonderful job. As of 31 March, the government had only spent $223 million on the Housing Australia Future Fund. But the problem with this fund is that you mandate it. The legislation says you've got to spend at least $500 million by 30 June. So what happens if there isn't any sensible way in those last three months to pay or use or apply the balance of $277 million? What happened? Where'd the money go? What did you do? Did the fund have to go out into the market and try and gobble up as many homes as it could in terms of meeting that shortfall of $277 million? How many everyday Australians were then prejudiced against because they were trying to purchase maybe their first property in competition with this government behemoth, the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund? We've got no transparency in relation to that—absolutely no transparency. The Australian people deserve transparency in relation to this $10 billion fund. It's their money, which was borrowed by the Australian government. That's $10 billion, and we've got no transparency with respect to what has happened to that remaining $277 million.

I note that the Auditor-General is now considering an official investigation into the Housing Australia Future Fund. It was only announced two years ago, and the independent Auditor-General is now considering an investigation into how this fund's operating. It's not a great start, is it? It's not a great start. You set up a $10 billion fund with borrowed money. You effectively indebted the Australian people for $10 billion. You've built 17 homes in the two years since it was announced. You've gone onto the market and actually acquired 20 times as many homes, 340, in competition with the Australian people. Basic economics says that that had to drive up the price of at least those homes. And then you've got this $277 million figure, which you were required to spend under the legislation—no flexibility; you've got to spend that money—and we don't know what it was spent on. Now, we've got the Auditor-General considering whether or not they should undertake an investigation in relation to the management of this fund. It's not a great start, is it? It's not a great start. I wonder where we'll be when we're reflecting on this fund this time next year. What will we have, 32 houses? And maybe they will have purchased 680? I wonder.

There is another issue with respect to housing—and these are really important issues; there were a number of important policies which the coalition took to the election, which I hope that the government considers because there are some systemic issues in relation to the provision of housing. In the location of my office, in the region where my office is located in the south-west corridor of Queensland, which is a lovely place called Springfield, there is immense population growth. There are thousands of potential residential housing lots that have been caught up in bureaucratic red tape in Canberra for up to five years. For up to five years, they've been caught up in that bureaucratic red tape in Canberra. It's just madness. Those housing lots could start to be developed tomorrow if that red tape were navigated through.

One of the other policies which the coalition took to the last election was in relation to providing infrastructure funding to councils so that councils would get that additional support to enable them to actually invest in the infrastructure, the sewerage, the roadworks et cetera to open up new areas for housing development. I thought that was a terrific idea, and, talking to some of the councils, I know they thought it was a good idea as well. (Time expired)