The government, the Greens and those in need of social housing have all won from the Greens combining with the Coalition and right-wingers in the Senate to block Labor’s silly Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF).
The Greens are pretending they’ve only deferred voting on legislation establishing the fund until later in the year, but Adam Bandt has boxed himself into a corner with his insistence the government must somehow force the state and territory governments into imposing rent caps before he’ll let the legislation through. Anything less than that and Bandt will yet again be charged with talking tough and then caving in to the government.
In any event, it’s in the interests of the Greens to keep blocking the bill, thus fostering the impression that housing remains an intractable problem — one they can use to sell themselves to younger voters, the victims of generations of housing policy failure. Meantime their MPs, like Max Chandler-Mather, assure their affluent, progressive inner-city electorates that there’ll be no extra housing in their backyards, thanks very much.
Not that Labor can complain too much. It will be handed a double dissolution trigger. Better yet, it will be on a promise Labor took to the 2022 election. With the RBA and governor Philip Lowe apparently determined to send the economy into recession, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will appreciate having the flexibility of not having to wait until 2025 to face voters, especially if he can claim voters have already given him a mandate on the bill being blocked.
The only real loser is the Coalition. When it’s not losing members in self-inflicted disasters, it appears determined under Opposition Leader Peter Dutton to demonstrate it thinks voters simply got it wrong at the last election and will come to their senses next time without the Liberals or the Nationals doing anything especially different. The result is persistent polling suggesting a substantial swing to the government. It also omits the Coalition from the national discussion about housing, beyond the Liberals’ prescription that developers just need to be allowed to do what they like — except, of course, in Liberal electorates.
One unexpected winner is social housing tenants. On the weekend the government announced $2 billion in social housing funding, to be allocated per capita across the states — $600 million to NSW, $500 million to Victoria, $400 million to Queensland, $135 million to South Australia, $200 million in Western Australia and $50 million each in Tasmania and the territories. The funding is to be spent over the next two years.
The Commonwealth funding is a significant addition to the Victorian, Queensland and Tasmanian governments’ recent ramp-ups of social housing spending. In NSW, where social housing spending has been stagnant for a decade, it will have a noticeable impact. But only if the states don’t repeat their response to the Rudd-era social housing stimulus and cut their own spending to offset the cheques that have arrived from Canberra.
The $2 billion spend demonstrates how naff the HAFF actually is. To do something about social housing — which has flow-on benefits through to the broader housing market by taking pressure off the bottom tier of the housing and rental markets — you don’t need a future fund, you just need to allocate funding from the budget. Yes, this means it notionally adds to the budget deficit, but it also avoids the management fees wasted in the operation of yet another billion-dollar fund that has itself been created from borrowed money in the first place (which the $10 billion HAFF is).
But the HAFF does allow the government to wave around a $10 billion figure as part of its solution to housing. It seems, post-pandemic, billion-dollar policy proposals no longer cut it for politicians eager to get voters’ attention — it has to be 11 digits or nothing. We might be hearing about them in an election campaign that arrives sooner than we’d all expected.
I doubt they will be rushing to the polls while mortgage rates approach 7% and households cancel holidays and plans to send the kids to private schools (to say nothing of paying for rent, food and utilities).
These “funds” are really the most lumpish type of accounting chicanery. The Greens and Coalition are absolutely correct to reject the proposal (even though the Libs are themselves expert at even bolder accounting sleight of hand).
One might suggest the ALP should feel embarrassed about this, but it’s really just a sign of how badly the neoliberal rot has set in mainstream political parties that the ALP is now doubling down on its obfuscation, rather than actually seeking to address the structural issues that have created the housing shortage to begin with. As with what is driving so much ALP policy, the answers are going to chafe uncomfortably against their ambitions to sidle through three terms of government.
The Greens are justified in trying to reap some political benefit from the inevitable backlash against both of these parties. It will be a worthwhile experiment for this country to make both Labor and Liberal more marginal political players.
The most blatantly dishonest posturing about all this comes from those politicians, Labor and some cross bench, who attack the Greens for not passing this bill on the grounds that we must not delay for another moment, something must be done now. As though they do not see that the HAFF cannot possibly provide any new housing for years, and if it finally does, it will provide very little compared to the overall demand that needs to be met. So far as something must be done now, the HAFF is completely irrelevant. So far as something must be done in the future, it is an ineffective and indirect gesture that seems to be have devised all for its appearance and not for an outcome. It’s a fancy facade of a housing policy.
Quite. The Greens (“political party”) (sorry, forgot to use standard ALP language there) have done a good job in forcing a $2bn one time payment. This is a genuine achievement which I’m sure irks many in the ALP. The HAFF is a joke and as you point out, claiming its delayed passage through parliament is somehow depriving vulnerable people of housing is just laughable. Bernard: you might be right in what you think the Greens (political party) interest or motivation is – I don’t think you’re right. And, as for MCM’s objection to a housing DA – I would have enjoyed educating myself about the merits or otherwise, but the link is behind an AFR paywall.
See my comment below to explain Chandler-Mather’s objection.
Agreed, including surprise at the cynical comment on the motivation of The Greens in general and Max CM especially. They have facts on their side, and to watch Labor politicians angrily pretend the analysis is wrong is traumatising… it’s as if Labor has deliberately occupied the space that the Coalition used to occupy in mis-governing Australia.
Nobody likes legitimising the Greens, it makes issues so much more complicated when some actual analysis is required rather than simple 2-party sports team politics.
‘… there’ll be no extra housing in their backyards, thanks very much.’
That needs clarification. Chandler-Mather is objecting to a development in his electorate, Griffith, in a vulnerable location which floods. In case some readers haven’t been through a capital city flood it means that the multi-storey apartment buildings have their basements filled with river water which means lifts cannot operate & some residents may be stranded if they have mobility issues. In South Brisbane there is a vulnerable residential building of 30 storeys – ponder the plight of those residents (especially if elderly) on higher floors. Sometimes lifts cannot be operational again for several months, this occurred to several complexes in West End, South Brisbane & St Lucia in February 2022.
Hence there is a sound reason Chandler-Mather is against that particular development at Bulimba – he continues to cop flack for it while his critics play disingenuous, never giving the full facts. I urge the Greens to remain resolute & not to fold re the pathetic HAFF proposal.
Indeed. It was a little disappointing to see Mr Keane repeating the ALP furphy trying to make Chandler-Mather’s objections pure NIMBYism. As you point out, it’s building a complex of multi-storey apartment blocks on land which is close to 95% floodplain. Mind you, the developers have offered to ‘fix’ this issue – by raising the height of the land to move the floodplain to the existing housing around their development.
Also, as is always the case, those basements will be car-parking with no effort made to add to the cost by doing something about the resulting increased traffic. (Chandler-Mather isn’t trying to get the project banned for this part though – just insisting that council and developers plan something about a completely predictable problem before the project is approved.)
I know, right – what the hell, Bernard?!
You’re way better than repeating disingenuous Labor talking points designed to sabotage the Greens. Pull up.
Which was pointed out to BK after his previous otherwise good essay on the topic. A pity that, perhaps to appear even-handed, BK reiterates an inaccurate potshot which began its life in the Fin.
So has Chandler-Mather provided a flood impact assessment stating the unacceptable risk or is it just an opinion that is a sound reason? (A flood impact assessment was submitted as part of the development application). I haven’t found evidence of Chandler providing this thus far.
Chandler-Mather has no need to proffer evidence: a flood map is freely available on the Brisbane City Council website. Why would the developers offer to raise the height of the land if it doesn’t flood? Of course the water would then run off onto neighbouring properties.
Brisbane City Council is not shy in approving developments on vulnerable sites. Recently they changed the rules which now permit a 90 storey building to be constructed along the guaranteed flood-prone riverside at South Brisbane.
Thanks for the clarification, Zut. I’m in NSW and did wonder what it was about.
The same situation (and principle, lack thereof) applies to ‘Raise the Dam Wall!’ cries from the current residents sold McMansions on the Nepean floodplains of west Sydney by the friendly and totally trustworthy developers of what was, until the 70s, the foodbowl for the city.
What an irrelevant political mish mash. Reminds me of two dogs walking opposite ways down the street. Just have to have a fight irrespective. In reality just marking out their irrelevant territory whilst Psing by on it like all politicians do.
Simply.
1 Demand the Commonwealth go into Public Housing construction.
2 Finance it by abolishing negative gearing and state how much it is in $.
3 Not enough money then abolish the tax breaks to the rich and say how much it is in $.
4 Want more money then a resources rent tax saying how much it is in $.
Well that’s a bl**dy good start and it has not cost me a cent. For those that will have to pay I’m sure most Aussies will say “Tell somebody who cares.”
That automatically excludes the LNP because the only thing they care about is themselves.
Couldn’t agree more. Blind Freddy’s answer to the problems
Sorry but the Greens effectively undermined most of that already by sabotaging Bill Shorten’s campaign and putting serious reform back at least a decade. Congratulations. You can pat yourself on the back one more time.
Pretty much a summary of Greens policies.
So, no, it’s not really like two dogs that just have to fight.
It is worth repeating that the ALP were just blackmailed into actually doing something about a major crisis. After their initial ‘borrow some money at the low-risk rates that a government can get for loans and invest it in something more high-risk high-reward to see if that might give us enough to buy some houses’ announcement, and months spent trying to get the Greens to go along with their inaction plan, they were forced to grudgingly do something. Mind you, their ‘do something’ was the bare minimum that they could get away with – grab a couple of billion dollars out of Consolidated Revenue and throw it at state and territory governments in the hope that they’ll do something.
And listening to the Housing Minister, Judy Collins, this morning was close to vomit-inducing. “What we want to do is get on with the job, and you saw us doing that with our announcement just last weekend. And we’ll continue to get on with the job because, as you say, those Australians that are finding it difficult to get a safe, affordable place to call home are relying on us to get the job done. And that’s what we’ll continue to do each and every day get more houses on the ground.”
Apparently there’s a job. And they’re doing that job. And that’ll get the job done. Or not, because the Greens keep interrupting them to impolitely point out that they need to stop talking about their job and start working. Maybe it all sounds different to a rusted-on Labor voter, but to me her little speech sounds like it could have come from any of the worst Liberal government ministers of the past decade. Almost like she’s channelling Scott Morrison. An idea for her next interview: “If you buy a house, you’ll get a house.”
The only ‘improvement’ Collins could’ve made to her cliched speech this morning would’ve been to add ‘going forward’ to the end of each sentence.
It has become a compulsory weasel word term for the majority of politicians. It’s meaningless & annoying hence fits in nicely with the remainder of their content.