Labor’s plan to implement a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund is under threat from the Greens and the Opposition. Both parties need to take a breath and consider the realities of their situation.
The Opposition need to realise that their job is to oppose government legislation if it is bad, and offer a better idea.
They rarely do this, simply opposing everything without offering any viable alternative. That is exactly what they are doing to the housing fund.
The Greens, at least, are offering an alternative, but is this alternative realistic in terms of viability and achievability? The answer is both yes and no.
Labor’s housing fund provides $10 billion over 20 years to build new houses, repair and improve housing for Indigenous communities, and provide additional crisis accommodation for women and children escaping domestic violence.
The first five years would see 20,000 more social housing properties built and 10,000 affordable homes built for frontline workers such as police, nurse and cleaners.
Under the plan, the houses will be paid for through the returns on investment from a to-be-established $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund.
At first view, $10 billion seems like a significant amount for the government to be putting up to address the housing crisis, but it is only $500 million a year, and it is not guaranteed. A future LNP government would most likely cancel the fund before it had the opportunity to achieve its goals.
So the Greens may have a point when they say that want $5 billion a year to construct homes, instead of the proposed $500 million. The argument seems to be to spend the money quickly before a future government can scuttle the plan.
The Greens also want the government to reassess the $200 million set aside over five years for the repair, maintenance and improvements of housing for remote Indigenous communities and boost that figure to $1 billion over the first five years. Again, this doesn’t seem unreasonable.
From an economic point of view, Australia could certainly afford the initial outlay, with the promise of higher returns from rents in the future. And the government needs to act quickly lest an LNP government be miraculously returned in 2025, and cancels the project.
What the Greens have failed to consider is that we have a skills shortage in Australia, and the construction industry is already overwhelmed repairing the damage done by recent floods and bushfires. We simply do not have enough construction workers to fulfil the Greens ambitions.
However, we probably have enough workers available to build more than what Labor are proposing, but still not enough to build what the Greens are proposing. The two parties need to work together to come to some middle ground.
The two parties have access to figures which would show how many workers are available, and both could amend their plans to a more reasonable figure. These are figures which are not readily available to the general public.
Perhaps they could set the bar at $2 billion a year for the fund, and $500 million over the first five years for remote Indigenous communities, as an example. Perhaps it could be slightly higher, or even a little lower.
Whatever the outcome, the Greens are right in saying that the amount being offered is not enough, but are overly ambitious with the figures they are demanding.
The other factor to take into account is that it could be a temporary solution, unless safeguards are built in to ensure that a future LNP government could not just sell the properties off to investors.
If they wanted to, a future government could simply sell the properties at low prices, and the investors could demand higher rents. This would cancel out any benefits the plan currently promises, and only investors would benefit.
Notwithstanding all this, Labor’s plan has great merits, and the Greens alternative has its merits as well. The two parties need to work together to find a better solution.
Craig Hill,
via email
