Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start by thinking about what was happening this morning when Senator Bragg woke up. He probably woke up in a warm, quiet environment, under a multiple-thread-count sheet, reached out his hand and grabbed—

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

Where's this going?

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hold your horses and you'll find out!

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

I'm starting to blush!

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that says more about you than it does about me! He reaches out his hand to his fully charged, state-of-the-art iPhone. He thinks about what he's going to have for his breakfast. Maybe the fresh eggs in his fridge? Maybe that nice bacon he got from the deli?

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

He's a vegan.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If he's a vegan, he won't be eating that bacon, will he? Then he goes to the laundry and gets his crisply ironed, white shirt and starts to prepare for his day in a calm and ordered fashion, knowing that everything's in order and the only thing he has to worry about is why he put this bill, the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024, forward in this house.

Down road, in a car park, Josie wakes up in her car. It's cold. It's damp. She's pretty stressed. She wriggles out of her sleeping bag and looks at the only thing that's left on the seat of the car for her to eat: some dry crackers. She shakes out her wrinkled clothes, looks across at her flat phone and wonders what on earth she is going to do today. She is stressed. Josie doesn't care who is going to build the housing of the future. Josie just wants it built so that she can find somewhere to live. She doesn't hate unions, she doesn't hate the CFMEU and she doesn't hate Cbus, but she does hate not being able to find a home.

What we're seeing here is just another attempt, in another year, to do nothing to address the housing crisis that we have in this country. While we on this side, the Labor government, are focused on building more homes and tackling the housing crisis, the opposition are coming into this, the second week of the 48th Parliament, with more and more of this ideological rubbish. Senator Bragg and his party are the same people who stood in this chamber, blocking every single housing solution that we brought in here. They blocked Labor's Help to Buy program, stopping 40,000 Australians from owning their own homes; they blocked our build-to-rent laws, stopping 80,000 renters; and they blocked the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion program that is directly supporting the delivery of tens of thousands of social and affordable homes, the kinds of homes that Josie needs so that she doesn't have to sleep in her car. So you've got to ask the question: is this bill really about housing, or is it about the opposition's ideological stand against unions, or is it about the opposition's pathological hatred of the CFMEU, or is it about the opposition's distaste for working people having a say in their own future—

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's all of the above.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

or—as rightly pointed out by my colleague Senator Sheldon—is it all of the above?

Let's just be clear about part of the situation here. Superannuation funds, including Cbus, are actually strongly regulated. They are required to comply with strict governance standards, and they are required to act in the best financial interest of their members. APRA engages with superannuation funds on their governance arrangements and ensures that their boards meet the necessary standards. A longstanding feature of the superannuation system is equal representation, so you have equal numbers of employers and employees—not one or the other but both, so both interests can be served. All superannuation fund trustee boards have to assure themselves that their directors meet the necessary standards. This is regulated; this is monitored. What's being put forward by those opposite is just an attack. It's not real. It's not helpful. What we are seeing when we look at the Housing Australia Future Fund is a fund that is administered by Housing Australia. It's an independent body, so the notion of capture between the superannuation funds and the unions is, as I say, just the ideological hatred that we see from the opposition. It clouds their vision, it clouds their view, it clouds their understanding of the situation, and it clouds their ability to actually do anything about it, so they continue to sit there and block any progress on housing in this country, and that's a disgrace—an absolute disgrace.

We know that there are solutions. We know that there is a long-term fix. We've been working on it frantically for the last three years, looking at the situation in front of us and actually taking the time. Where do we not have enough housing? Why is that? What are the changes in the demographics? What are the changes in our population? What's the demand? Where's this going? How are we looking at this to find ourselves the right answer and the right balance between what housing we have now and what housing we need into the future? The pipeline of houses to build, the pipeline of houses to rent and the pipeline for people who are doing it tough and who require more support in our social housing—we have been looking at these, and this is how we came up with Labor's plan for housing for the future, by knowing that we were in a crisis.

I have to ask the question: what exactly is it that the opposition did for 10 years when they were in government and when this crisis was brewing? All the indicators and signs were there that housing was turning into a crisis situation. Our rates of people who were homeless were increasing and our rates of people struggling to find rental accommodation were increasing. Now, we often hear the excuse that it was all COVID. No, it wasn't. It really wasn't. Ask any of the housing peak bodies or interest groups and look at their modelling, their structures and what they have looked at, and that's not true. Yes, it had an impact alongside a bunch of other things. But now we need action on the ground to actually look at where our housing situation is going, how much housing we need into the future and how swiftly we can get it on the ground. There are some fantastic solutions being put forward. Some of our states, particularly my own home state of South Australia, are doing an absolutely spectacular job of moving hurdles out of the way, finding innovative solutions and moving as quickly as possible to put in place the housing that we need into the future.

To touch on the pathological hatred of the CFMEU from across the chamber here, I fully support our construction workers. They deserve a strong union that can represent them and stand up for them, and that's exactly the path that we are on. Yes, an intervention was made because there was some untoward activity going on that could not be accepted. But the pathway is there for the future and for that union to stand up strong and support the workers with no bad behaviour and no untoward activities, but a union doing what unions do—representing their members. That is what we wish to see into the future and that is what we will see into the future. Because, while we are on these government benches, we will be pushing to deal with this housing crisis and with anything associated with it that comes up. We need to have those opposite get out of the way and stop with this ideological rubbish. You might think it looks like a good headline, but, seriously, there are people like Josie who are living in their cars, and all you want to do is sit there and block action, block development and block a solution to the situation which is a crisis situation in this country and needs to be dealt with.

Housing can't be fixed overnight. We know that. You can't just snap your fingers and pop up some housing. But you had 10 years and you allowed the situation to crumble and to get worse and worse, and you did nothing. And now you have the cheek to sit there and block everything that we try and do. It is a disgrace, and you should be deeply ashamed of yourselves. The plan we have for the future is to get people into housing and to make renting more secure. A lot of the rental rules are dealt with by the states. We have seen state after state come to the party and improve the situation on the ground to make renting a property more secure, so you can live there knowing that is your home. I would, again, like to shout-out our South Australian state government for the changes they have made to rental laws which are making a real difference for people on the ground.

But we need to build more housing. We need to be able to take the money that we have and invest it in the Australians who need the support, who need more options. We cannot continue to have people like Josie sleeping in cars. We cannot continue to have people looking to purchase a house and feeling that they're never going to get there. We need these structures in place to enable people to have the security of a home, whether it's their own home or a rental. That's what we're all about. That is what we are doing here.

To increase supply is critical. If we build more housing, there are more options for people. People who can purchase, if they're given a hand, can get into those homes. I know from talking to people that many of them could actually service a mortgage, but they cannot afford to build up the size of a deposit they need for that home. Having that opportunity for a lower investment at the very beginning, with some support from the government, enables them to get into their home, where they can service that mortgage. They can get on their feet and own their own home into the future. And that's what we want. We want people to be able to own their own home. But, for those who rent, we want them to have a secure rental, to know that they are supported, to know that they are not going to be thrown out on the street with very little notice, to know that they can make that rental their own home.

Labor has a plan to address the housing crisis. We have started and we are working so hard to get that delivered. The constant attacks and the constant blocks by those opposite are deeply unhelpful. They should just wake up to the fact that people need assistance and need it now, and they should just get out of the way.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bragg has advanced the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024, which modifies the charter of the Housing Australia Future Fund to prevent financing of projects that Cbus owns. Cbus is a superannuation fund with legal affiliation to the CFMEU. The CFMEU are currently under a federally appointed administrator, a move that was a long time coming. Queensland premier Crisafulli has called an inquiry into the CFMEU's systemic violence, intimidation, misogyny and bullying. This bill from Senator Bragg is common sense—to prevent cash leaking through Cbus to the CFMEU until the CFMEU clean up their act and get back to representing Australian workers and to working constructively with industry to create secure, well-paid jobs at scale for all Australians.

Australia needs housing, and we need breadwinner jobs. We have a responsibility to ensure that infrastructure is built on time and on budget. One Nation does, though, propose a better alternative to Senator Bragg's bill. We would shut down the housing future fund and the federal department of housing. Housing is a state responsibility, a state power. Government has no role in building houses. Its presence in the market drives up prices and slows down production, displacing private builders and monopolising building products. We will wind the building code back to remove the woke nonsense and the net-zero nonsense which were recently introduced into the code, and suspend the GST on building materials. Together these will cut $50,000 off a new home's construction cost. Independently assessed, around $49,000 of that comes out of the modifications to the building code, which are rubbish. We will take the $11 billion in funds under management at the housing future fund and roll that into a people's bank, accessed through Australia Post, offering mortgages for first home buyers who are Australian citizens. It's been proven here in the past in Australia. It's been proven in North America. It's been proven in Japan and New Zealand.

Mortgages will be on five per cent interest with a five per cent deposit, fixed for up to 30 years. The five per cent deposit can come from the first home owner grant and then be topped up by using the applicant's own superannuation account, protected with a lien. Notice I said 'account', not 'fund'. This will not be a drawdown from super. Super is useful for retirement. Our policy simply replaces super funds investing in housing with the person's own super account investing in their own house. As the house grows in value, so too does the value of the lien held in the person's own superannuation account, protecting their retirement. Someone who has been working in the workforce for five years on average, and who is entitled to a first home owner's grant, may be able to move into their own home straightaway.

We must do more for the young Australians who this government, and other recent governments, have sold out. Young people who did everything society asked—they studied hard, stayed out of trouble, got their degrees, got their high school qualifications—now have a HECS debt, rent and a grocery bill they can't afford. And they are in despair, right across Australia.

The government's housing measures are complete rubbish. They are an insult to Australians. The government's own incoming government report stated clearly that their construction targets would not be met—bloody hopeless. Canberra, as I've said many times, is the source of every major problem in this country, and one of the biggest problems we have in this country right now is a homelessness crisis—an inhuman homelessness catastrophe.

In my state of Queensland, going from the north in Cairns, every major provincial city has a homelessness crisis, a housing crisis. In Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg, Maryborough, the Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast, Brisbane—the capital city of what should be the wealthiest state in the world has got homeless people sleeping on the riverbanks, under bridges, in tents and in caravans—Ipswich, Boonah, Toowoomba, in every major provincial city, there are homeless.

If you drive into Gympie, in a concrete car park, there are homeless people in tents. Parents come home at night—working mothers and fathers—wondering if their kids are still in the car and then sleeping in the car. Where do they go to the toilet? Where do they have showers? These are good people. And then the councils just put the bulldozer through the tents, put the bulldozer through the cars and that's it: gone.

Why is that happening in Queensland? It's because we've got so many people leaving Victoria to come up to Queensland. In particular, we have got catastrophic, inhuman immigration levels that this government and the previous government have perpetuated. Catastrophic immigration started with John Howard's government when he doubled immigration. Every prime minister since has been on the trend of increasing immigration.

We've got so many foreigners owning houses. Some of them are locked up as an investment, not being used. We've got 75,000 people here on residence visas illegally. One Nation says, 'Deport them immediately.' We've got students here in contravention of a student visa—up to 100,000 of them. Get rid of them. Free up some houses. We've got accommodation capacity for 100,000 students; we've got about 600,000 overseas students in the country. That can't continue. One Nation says: start with the demand and deport people who are here illegally or in contravention of their visa—deport them. Stop foreign ownership of housing, which will increase the supply. And, regarding the construction costs that I've mentioned, our policy goes beyond what I've mentioned briefly. We've also mentioned the finances. Our One Nation policy fixes demand, supply, construction and finance. Senator Grogan said that housing cannot be fixed overnight. It can be fixed close to overnight, just by doing the things One Nation has said: address demand, supply, construction and finance. We must do better. It takes several months to build a house; it takes several months to build an apartment complex. It doesn't take long, though, to deport people who are here illegally. It doesn't take long at all. That frees up supply and reduces the demand.

Canberra, as I said, is the cause of every major problem in this country, and it comes from both Liberal and Labor governments—every major problem. The government's housing measures—I repeat—are rubbish. Their own incoming government report stated clearly that their construction targets would not be met, yet they perpetuate the nonsense. We must do better. One Nation are in support, and I thank Senator Bragg for this legislation.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to start my speech a little bit differently than I had anticipated, because I was struck by something that Senator Grogan said. While Senator Bragg is a good friend of mine, I have to say, when I woke up this morning, I did not think at all about Senator Bragg or what he was doing—no offence intended. I do note that he often does have a very crisp white shirt, though. I also note your comments, Senator Grogan, about Josie and when she woke up. Whilst I have never woken up in my car, I did, for many years, face housing insecurity with my children, and I do understand how difficult and how challenging that is and the need to have security of housing and that roof over your head.

I agree with your comment that Josie doesn't care who builds it, but I think we should care about who owns it. We have a problem with the fact that we have global institutional investors who will own these properties that Australians will live in. That's something we should have a think about, because, if we are building homes for Australians, it's our view that Australians should own those homes. Our priority should be that we have the option to own a home and that we should have the opportunity to own a home, not outsourcing that to some globalist entity who we then pay our incomes to in rent.

I also have a problem with the fact—I've spoken about this before—that women are allowed to access our super for emergency expenses of paying rent to someone that could be one of these global entities, but we can't access it to invest in our own housing for housing security for ourselves and our children. I would like someone to explain to me why one of those things is 'raiding the piggy bank of my own money' and the other isn't. I would think that raiding my piggy bank of super to have a roof over the heads of me and my children is a better thing when I own that property than me paying it in rent to a globalist entity like BlackRock or somebody else like that. I think that's something we need to think about. We're losing our perspective here. We need to get back to the basics and the fundamentals of the fact that we actually have a right to own our own housing, and somebody else shouldn't dictate to us what that should look like or suggest to us that we hate unions et cetera because we are opposed to the way they act.

Labor should be banning Cbus and the CFMEU from any involvement in the HAFF. That is a reality. I don't think there should be any question about that. That's not because people hate the unions or the CFMEU. They hate the misconduct, they hate the corruption and they hate the impact that it has on everyday people. Given the close connection and control between Cbus and the CFMEU, allowing Cbus to participate in the HAFF risks its integrity. Anybody who suggests otherwise is not looking at this plainly or clearly. Cbus has an obligation to spend its members' funds in the best interests of their members' retirement. However, super funds like Cbus make payments to unions masked as contracts or sponsorship agreements, and these types of payments are made by Cbus to the CFMEU.

What is also alarming is the destruction the CFMEU has caused in the construction sector, at a time when building more homes has never been more urgent. So when we're looking at barriers to getting things done—I was actually listening to Senator Roberts. Many years ago, it did take months to build a house. Guess what? Now it takes closer to years to build a house. That is because of the red tape involved. That's because of the different hurdles at local and state levels that make it so hard for people to build homes. But there are also hurdles in construction that are brought in and are impacted by measures introduced by unions.

Numerous sources, including the Real Estate Institute of Queensland, have highlighted that the conditions of the CFMEU enterprise bargaining agreements are leading to an increase in cost of up to 30 per cent. When I spoke about this the other day, I just made it very simple in terms of what that means for what is now an entry-level dwelling in many cities across our country—$800,000, of which 30 per cent is another $240,000. Good luck trying to save another $240,000 when you're already struggling to save your initial deposit. That's completely heartbreaking for young people who want to buy their own home. How do they even fathom that? Where do they begin? That is unacceptable.

We have heard allegations from state and federal detectives that the CFMEU New South Wales state secretary, Darren Greenfield, boasted to corrupt building firms that he could secure them lucrative contracts on major construction projects financed by Cbus because of his influence in the fund. That in itself should be disturbing. That in itself should be dealt with, but it hasn't been. The Australian Financial Review also reported that Greenfield previously told a building company owner that he would exert his influence over Cbus to ensure the fund instructed the lead contractor to use subcontractors favoured by the CFMEU—not the best Australian small business or the best local business or the business that provides the best value but those favoured by the CFMEU. Have a think about that.

Despite purporting to take a hard line against the criminality in the CFMEU, Labor has refused to consider deregistering the union. Again, this isn't about hating the union, as the other side has said; this is about hating the conduct and hating the fact that this conduct continues unchecked. 'Let's put our head in the sand and pretend it's not happening.' Well, on this side of the chamber, we are not going to do that. Labor and Cbus have refused to recognise any issue with CFMEU representatives sitting on the board of a $94 billion fund, and Cbus has refused to cut its ties with the CFMEU despite the allegations and evidence of corrupt and intimidating behaviour. That's extraordinary. I don't think any other organisation in our country would be granted the same tacit consent to behave in that same way. Until Cbus has cut its ties with the CFMEU, it is an inappropriate party through which to undertake government business, and there can be no question about it—none whatsoever.

So what is Senator Bragg wanting to do here? The Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 would prohibit the HAFF from investing in housing assets or entities financed by Cbus Super to ensure taxpayer funds are left out of the criminal hands of the CFMEU. We shouldn't have any issue with that. We should all be in complete agreeance that that is the right way forward. By inserting an additional limitation in the HAFF's governing legislation, this bill will prohibit investments into housing related projects that Cbus has invested in or will invest in.

We've seen the impacts it's had on commercial construction and the construction of infrastructure in this country, the cost blowouts. So now, despite the fact that we have evidence of that criminal conduct, we're going to say: 'Yes, now, come into the residential construction sector. Come and help us build houses so that they cost more and take longer whilst we are in the midst of a housing crisis.' It's nothing short of madness. I can't think of anything but the fact that, as I said the other day, Labor has no interest in probity, no interest in transparency and no interest in stopping the criminal conduct of the CFMEU, because it is opening more doors for it to infiltrate more broadly across our construction sector.

As it stands, the HAFF can invest taxpayer funds into projects and entities financed by Cbus. Cbus Super and CFMEU, as Senator Bragg has often said, are conjoined twins. They are, it's clear. In the 2022-23 financial year, Cbus paid the CFMEU $1.25 million, including $233,000 paid to the CFMEU's Victorian branch for a sponsorship agreement. Let's repeat that: Cbus paid the CFMEU $1.25 million in 2022-23, and the Victorian branch was given $233,000 for a sponsorship agreement. Does that mean 'Cbus' gets written on the CFMEU T-shirts? I don't know what it's for. I would be keen to understand what that looked like. I hope they're really nice T-shirts.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And made in Australia, because I don't think they are!

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, I would hope they are Australian made. It is no surprise, therefore, that APRA imposed additional licence conditions on Cbus to engage an independent expert to review whether their CFMEU board members are meeting their legal duties. Is this because APRA hates the unions? Is this because APRA hates the CFMEU? I don't think so. I don't think it's because they hate them. I think it's because APRA is very, very worried about the actions of the CFMEU, as they rightly should be and as everybody in this chamber should be. Just because you call someone out, just because you call out misconduct, doesn't mean you have a hatred for that organisation or for what their mission is. But we are right in this. If we can't call people out in this place for egregious misconduct and criminal activity, then when will we do it? How can we face the people who have elected us to represent them here if we remain silent on these things?

The Labor government and APRA should be pushing Cbus to cut ties with the CFMEU. This means kicking the three CFMEU directors off the board and stopping the endless flow of workers' money to the CFMEU. Let's not forget that the money that Cbus has is the money from its workers, the money that it is meant to be investing for the benefit of its workers. On the one hand, we are in agreement that the CFMEU should be in administration; we actually think it should be deregistered, but administration is fine. But I fail to see how an entity that has been put into administration could be receiving money from a super fund that belongs to members of that fund. I would like somebody to explain that to me and why it is okay, because I don't think it is.

Just a quick update, before I finish, on where the HAFF is at the moment. This is Labor's flagship housing policy, the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, and so far it has built 17 homes here in the ACT. I was listening to Senator Bragg in estimates when he was questioning Labor on how many dwellings they had built. I was just trying to remember who was in the room at the time, but it escapes me right now. The comment was that they had acquired and converted 340 houses from existing builds. It was an interaction between Senator Bragg and Senator Gallagher in the economics committee. I remember Senator Bragg's shock at the comment, 'acquired and converted'. It means they bought 340 houses that had already been built, and they effectively renovated them so that they were suitable for whatever type of housing they were seeking to put into the market. That means the government had actually entered the market and purchased 340 houses during a housing crisis, which meant young Australians or entry-level buyers could then not buy them. Was that lost on anybody? They've just created an additional barrier to entry for young Australians. It's quite extraordinary. Instead of building homes, Labor are building bureaucracies and barriers to entry. The Housing Australia Future Fund has been one of the greatest public policy failures in recent history. They promised to build 1.2 million homes by 2030, and—this is not me saying it—advice from Treasury has revealed that this promise will be broken.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of Senator Bragg's Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024. This bill is a timely and necessary bill, but, more than that, this is a bill that is in the Australian people's national interest. It is a direct response to a failure of policy, a failure of governance and, more than that, as speaker after speaker has said, a failure of ethics by Mr Albanese and the Labor government. But, above all, why has Senator Bragg brought this bill forward? Because he is concerned, just like we all are in the Liberal Party and the National Party, with what is now a growing crisis in our housing system in Australia. This crisis is one that this Labor government has not only failed to fix—and this is the bad news for Australians, and the statistics that we will all go through in our speeches do not lie—but actually made worse.

All Senator Bragg's bill seeks to do is this: amend the governing legislation of the Housing Australia Future Fund to ensure that funds raised for public housing—that is, housing for the Australian people—do not flow into projects tied to entities controlled or influenced by the criminal, quite frankly, CFMEU. Specifically, what this bill will do is this: prohibit taxpayer money being funnelled into housing developments financed by—the name sounds so lovely—Cbus Super. The issue with Cbus Super, and what the Labor Party forgets to tell the Australian people, is that this superannuation fund is an entity inextricably linked to the most lawless union in this country. Even the government can't admit that it's not, because, with the help of the coalition, they put it into administration.

Let's be clear about Senator Bragg's bill. This is not a bill about a question of ideology. This is now about a question of integrity. Labor talked a big game in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund. They continue to support a big game in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund. But, instead, they've implemented it. The money is there. Let's actually look at what the real situation is for Australians who are battling to get into a home. 'Housing Australia Future Fund' is a great headline from the Labor government—I'm not going to deny that. That is what they are so good at. I wouldn't give them 10 out of 10; I would give them 11 out of 10 for great headlines. But it's time, quite frankly, that we exposed the great headline and looked at the devastating reality of what this government is actually doing to Australians who are currently sleeping in cars and have no opportunity at all to get into the housing market—and, worse than that, are being sold a pup by the Albanese government.

The Housing Australia Future Fund's central promise has failed, so let's look at what Labor said to the Australian people. This is what they said and continue to say whenever they stand up. The Australian people were told by Mr Albanese that his signature Housing Australia Future Fund would deliver, and I quote, 30,000 new homes. Mr Albanese also said: 'My government will be bold. My government will be ambitious. My government will be urgent.' Let's look at the actual statistics. This is not the coalition speaking; these other numbers that you get from departments at estimates. In other words, we ask the questions of those in charge of the Housing Australia Future Fund and we get the answers. The question we ask is—30,000 new homes; bold, ambitious and urgent—how many has the fund actually built? Australians deserve to know this, and we will be telling this to Australians every single day between now, quite frankly, and the next election: as of July 2025, two years after the fund was announced—this is a fact—approximately 17 homes have been built.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell him he missed by 29,000.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He missed by only 29,900-and-something. That is an abject policy failure on the part of this government. They are failing the Australian people, whom we agree desperately need to get into homes. And yet all Mr Albanese did—it's a great headline: urgency, integrity, ambitious and bold. But the reality confronting the Australian people, which, as I said, we're going to remind them of every single day between now and the next election, is that Mr Albanese is failing them.

Worse than that, though, is that Labor like to fudge the figures. What an insult to the Australian people! A few hundred homes have been acquired and converted. Hold on, the whole point was to build new homes. You actually add to additional housing stock in Australia. That's what a new home is. You build it and you add a home to the housing stock in Australia. Remember, the promise was 30,000. We're at around 17 after two years, but the problem with Labor is this: they still treat the Australian people as if they're mugs. This is how Labor fudge the figures: they increase them by saying or pretending that, when you acquire or convert an existing home, that's a success. Well, let me tell you what happens when you use Australian taxpayer money—because that's what this is; it's Australian taxpayer money that was meant to be invested in new builds to add to housing stock—to acquire or convert. Say I'm an Australian person and I'm out there hoping to get into that home right there. Do you know what the government does? It sweeps straight in, it purchases the home and it says, 'There's another Australian successfully in a home.' Well, quite frankly, enough is now enough, and we are going to expose the government for its continuous misleading of the Australian people.

So let us be clear: the Australian Labor Party under Mr Albanese, despite their promise to the Australian people and the billions they've invested in this—and, shortly, we'll get to how much has actually been spent—are not creating housing stock. You create housing stock; you create new homes—that is how you get people who currently can't get into a home into a home. The Australian Labor Party and Mr Albanese are bidding against first home buyers. So I'm speaking to any young Australians out there who voted for the Australian Labor Party because they thought: 'I like their announcement. I like their plan. I love the title, Housing Australia Future Fund. I love their target'—in fact, it wasn't even a target—'I love what they said, that they would deliver 30,000 new homes.' When you are at the next auction or the next open home, just remember that Mr Albanese is with you. The Australian Labor government are with you every step of the way, and the bad news for you is this: you thought you had enough to actually purchase this home. You thought you'd done the right thing, you'd saved up the deposit and you would be getting into that house. Well, guess what? Mr Albanese and the Australian Labor Party are swooping in and they are actually bidding directly against you. That is not policy; that is an absolute disgrace. That is performance art and nothing more. It is a reality. Australians cannot live in a press release or an aspiration, and they certainly can't live in housing stock that's not newly built when they're trying to actually get into the market, and all Mr Albanese is doing under this scheme is swoop in and outbid them.

Let's also have a look at the statistics, though. Mr Albanese stood up in front of the Australian people and said that the Housing Australia Future Fund would invest $10 billion for the future of housing in Australia. That was—what?—two years ago now. Again, this is not the coalition speaking. These are the figures that you get via the estimates process. The estimates process is when the opposition parties are able to question the department about what Labor said to the Australian people. Let's now talk about what they've actually done. There's $10 billion in investment for the future of Australian housing, but, after years of spin, at 31 March this year, $233 million had been spent. What's worse is that under the legislation there is a mandated annual commitment. For those who don't know what a mandated annual commitment is, it's this. People don't necessarily like being told they have to do something, but it's even worse when government has a mandated commitment to deliver on behalf of the Australian people, because government should be delivering on it. The legislation provides that half a billion dollars each year must actually be spent. But no, only $223 million has been spent from this fund. Let's be very clear. The rules are crystal clear. Half a billion dollars must be spent each financial year. We know they haven't met that, they can't meet it and, in fact, some might say they never had any intention of meeting it. They got the headline, they conned Australians and they're back in government.

We asked them where the additional $277 million had gone. It was meant to be spent before the 30 June deadline. I would have thought that, on behalf of the Australian people, who were promised something by Mr Albanese, they would want (a) the half a billion invested on their behalf or (b) forget the 17 homes; they'd want progress towards the 30,000. I think it's a fair question in behalf of the Australian people. The government were meant, by law, to invest half a billion dollars of our money to create additional homes, new builds, that young Australians and, in particular, women fleeing domestic violence could get into. They haven't, so what have they done with the rest of the money? The bad news for the Australian people is that Labor won't tell us. They actually won't tell us where your $277 million has gone. I mean, seriously! Anyone listening in the car should start dreaming up where you think the Albanese government could have spent the $277 million—your money—that they haven't spent on the housing that they told you that they would build, and they have not.

Unfortunately, the reality for the Australian people is that, yes, they voted the Albanese government back in, but they voted on the basis of promises that have now turned out to not be true. They voted on the basis of headlines which they believed. It is a fact that, under this government, they are not meeting their targets, they are not making the investments and Australians are still struggling to get into homes. The Housing Australia Future Fund is not a fund for delivering homes. It has been proven now by the evidence, two years after it was legislated, to be nothing more and nothing less. This is really sad. It's a familiar headline. I would have liked to have stood here and said that there is substance to it, but there's no substance to this at all.

I want to ask the Albanese government questions that they should be answering. How many young families have actually received a set of keys to a new build, not one of your conversions and not one of the ones where you've outbid an Australian trying to get into the market? How many single mums waiting in a motel have been told, under this fund, 'Your home is ready'? How many First Nations families on the 10-year waiting list have been told that, under this fund, 'Help is on the way, and you will be moving in'? What we have instead is the slow suffocation of the great Australian dream by a Labor government—a government long on promises but short on delivery. As I said, this bill responds to a failure of policy, a failure of government and, quite frankly, a failure of ethics. Shame on those in the chamber who want to stand by the headline and not listen to the substance.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to 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)

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024. I want to commend Senator Scarr on his enlightening contribution there. It was quite something to follow, because what Senator Scarr does is highlight the issues relating to housing in this country, which many will gloss over in this debate. We've had an election, and, yes, we have a returned government, but some in this place seem to think that that's a reset and that all of the issues that were there before the election have gone away and that we don't need to worry about the things we had to worry about before the election. But, if you go out there, as many of us do, and speak to our communities, you'd be reminded that the problems that were being experienced and faced by Australians before the election remain very much problems being faced and experienced by them now, despite there being a government returned to govern Australia.

That set of problems, those issues confronting Australians, of course include the matter of housing. I just think that we cannot lose sight of the fact that this problem being experienced by Australian households, young people and even older people seeking to enter into the housing market—it has not in any way lessened the impediments to that. It certainly remains a problem. Senator Scarr talked through some of the suggestions we had by way of policy, including the removal of regulation and red tape, making it easier for investment to occur, assisting with the headworks costs that go into—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Duniam, the time for this debate has expired. You will be in continuation.