Page 1643 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
At a time when there are over 116,000 homeless people in Australia, this $680 million grant should have been spent on social or affordable housing. This is not just the Greens’ view; it is also the view of many serious economists and academics. For example, Dr Brendan Coates of the Grattan Institute told the ABC that the economics of HomeBuilder were bad and that it would not provide the immediate stimulus needed. He said, further:
The tragedy here is that we will be paying Australians to build up a private asset rather than use the taxpayer funds to build up a public asset that is in dire need of more investment, which is social housing.
Not only would building social housing provide for people in dire need of an affordable home; it would support jobs.
Here is what Michael Hopkins, of the ACT Master Builders, told the COVID select committee about the economic benefits of investing in social housing during the COVID recession:
That would also help the residential sector. We know that the ACT government already has a large number of pre-qualified residential builders that could deliver an increased program of social housing.
That is why the Greens’ first election commitment has been a comprehensive $450 million package to get serious about making housing more affordable and making homelessness history. It includes a $200 million investment in new social housing and a $200 million investment in new community affordable rental housing. This would be an important step forward on housing affordability and it would protect jobs during the COVID recession.
In conclusion, HomeBuilder is simply the wrong way to protect jobs in the COVID recession. Unlike investment in social housing, it does nothing for housing affordability and instead is basically just a way of funnelling money to the well-off. The Greens will not be voting for Mr Coe’s motion and will instead vote for Ms Berry’s amendment.
MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (3.09): I am pleased to speak on this issue of housing affordability today and Mr Coe’s motion, because housing affordability is a very important issue to most Canberrans. I am specifically referring to the calls on the government to release more affordable land so that Canberrans can buy a house and land for a combined cost of less than $750,000. Many people in this place should already know that affordable housing is usually defined as housing for the second quintile of income earners, those who do not qualify for social or public housing but who cannot afford market rental housing without being placed in housing stress.
We have a lot of research, it seems almost daily, about housing affordability. A few years ago now, a St Vincent de Paul report, The Ache for Home, said that Australia had a crisis in the supply of social and affordable housing as evidenced by “the hundreds of thousands who are experiencing homelessness on wait lists for public housing or living in severe housing stress”.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video