|
representatives vote 2009-09-14#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-01-24 12:39:39
|
Title
Description
<p>Debate resumed.</p>- <p class="speaker">Kevin Andrews</p>
- <p> The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dunkley has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.</p>
- <p>Question put.</p>
-
<p class="speaker">Patrick Secker</p><p> The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dunkley has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Morrison</p><p>In resuming my comments on this bill I want to return to the issue of what is driving up housing affordability in this country. We face a severe supply shortage within our housing markets across Australia and that is estimated by the ANZ to be now in excess of 200,000 homes, which is more than we would build in any given year—and some—in a good year of economic activity, which would be around 140,000 homes. Contrary to some media claims, rising Australian house prices are the product of a supply bottleneck rather than a speculative bubble—in other words, due to policy failure rather than Mr Rudd’s rampant forces of capitalism.</p><p>There was much discussion recently about some statements made by the Reserve Bank governor when he was being verballed, I would say, into suggesting that there was some sort of housing bubble going on in the Australian markets. Recently, as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, I had the opportunity to ask the Reserve Bank governor about his views on this topic. I put to him that it was the case, in fact, that we were facing a supply bottleneck rather than a housing bubble. He responded by saying this:</p><p class="italic">I think what you have put your finger on here is really the point … we need more dwellings … the price of a marginal block of land is quite high.</p><p>He also said:</p><p class="italic">… we ought to be prepared to examine the question of whether we have managed to make the supply price of the marginal dwelling higher than it really needs to be.</p><p>This is the issue that we have, and I am concerned because of the application of what is in effect a $2½ thousand tax—and this bill is silent on this but we understand from the government that a future bill might not be silent on it—on every single new dwelling that is developed in this country in order to lay the fibre through those dwellings as a mandatory government requirement. That cost would have to be borne by the developer, who would obviously pass it on to the person seeking to buy a house. In addition to rising interest rates, as a result of the government’s spending, they would also be faced, literally, with higher taxes as a result of this proposal by the government.</p><p>We need to remove the supply bottlenecks. That is what the Reserve Bank governor was saying. He was saying that if you want to do something about housing affordability in this country, the most important thing you need to do is address the issue of supply bottlenecks. Land supply restrictions, high taxes, development approval delays, poor infrastructure planning—all of these are the issues that I refer to. And it is worth noting that this government has still not ruled out the idea of a tax on the family home in terms of capital gains tax. The evidence of a risk of more taxes flagged in these measures is something of great concern for all those who are interested in being able to buy, rent or pay off a home in Australia.</p><p>While the rollout of the National Broadband Network is expected to take some time, and far more time than it was ever promised to take by the government when they were in opposition, the government have announced that the fibre-to-the-premises infrastructure will be required in new greenfield housing estates that receive planning approval after 1 July 2010. The department released a discussion paper on this issue in May 2009, and through the discussion paper the government sought the input of some key stakeholders. The main theme of the responses to that discussion paper was that there was a lack of detail and a lack of equity in terms of the cost to the development sector. Comments from the Master Builders Association included that, while they supported the policy of improving access to high-speed broadband for businesses and the community and for Australia’s future economic prosperity, they believed it should be achieved in an equitable and cost-effective way without causing unjustifiable hardship to industry, business or the individual household. Urban Taskforce Australia, which represents Australia’s most prominent property developers and equity financiers, said in its response that:</p><p class="italic">The government should be mindful of the impact that increases in developer costs—</p><p>such as those incurred as a consequence of the NBN rollout—</p><p class="italic">will have on land and housing affordability. The home buyer cannot always afford an increase in price due to a new development cost—</p><p>and, I would suggest, a new development tax.</p><p>The Australian Local Government Association, with whom I have a great deal of contact in one of my other portfolio responsibilities, represent more than 560 local government authorities. In their submission they said that, while long supporting the need for reasonably priced access for all Australians to these types of services, they had tempered their support. They said:</p><p class="italic">… the complexity of the issues raised in the consultation paper will present a major challenge in implementing the Greenfield development initiative by the nominated date of 1 July 2010.</p><p>Specifically, they warn, ‘The approach to greenfield developments needs to be given careful consideration and the policy implications need to be properly assessed and evaluated upfront.’ They say that the failure to deal with the complex issues that have been canvassed in the consultation paper ‘will result in inefficiencies and unintended consequences for numerous parties, including local governments’ and local communities. We see in this place day by day, in the failure of the government to think through and plan their own stimulus spending in relation to the Building the Education Revolution schools program, what those consequences are: waste, mismanagement, cost blow-outs and those sorts of issues. So these are the concerns that people are raising in relation to this program from the government.</p><p>The Urban Development Institute of Australia is a peak industry body representing more than 4,000 companies involved in the development industry. They include designers, builders and planners. It too has said it is supportive of improved telecommunications capabilities but it has indicated that there are a number of issues that will need to be addressed. The UDIA’s major issue is equity. It believes that there should be no difference in the treatment of new estates and retrofitting and that there should be an upfront capital charge for greenfield estates but a cost recovery approach elsewhere. It suggests that the developer should only be responsible for providing the trench for the pits and pipe. The NBN companies should then be responsible for the installation of the pits and the pipes, the backhaul, the head end and all of the cabling into the homes. This is, it says, the current practice for existing telecommunications infrastructure delivered into new estates.</p><p>They are basically saying that the development industry should not have to underwrite the government’s prospectus for their NBN—that they should not have to be shelling out in terms of reducing cost so that the Prime Minister can take what is already a fairly reckless proposal to the market, asking mums and dads to invest in this thing without one skerrick of detail. They are now saying that they want the development industry to somehow underwrite this proposal by putting in the cash upfront to pay for this scheme for them. Both the Urban Taskforce and the UDIA have raised concerns about the lack of detail in the consultation paper as to how the fibre to the premises will be implemented on the ground. This is something the government will need to address with industry bodies in the coming months as the plan is further developed.</p><p>The Housing Industry Association makes the same point I have been making throughout my remarks on this bill, which is the impact on housing affordability. It makes the observation that the consultation paper assumes a ‘business as usual’ approach where costs involved are comparable to the existing charges for the provision of other essential services such as water and sewerage. The HIA warns that this ignores the compounding effect of yet another cost that the new home purchaser will need to borrow against. It refutes the government’s proposition that adding another cost layer to housing construction is somehow justifiable. Quite simply, it makes the point that housing is heavily taxed by all three levels of government and the policy direction proposed in the discussion paper can only be viewed as yet another tax on home purchases. Investigations by the HIA have revealed that there are up to 20 indirect taxes that constitute up to 30 per cent of the final purchase price of a house and land package, a situation that serves to undermine housing affordability.</p><p>The HIA submission notes that there has been a 300 per cent increase in taxation on housing in the past decade, compared to the increase in the consumer price index of only 25 per cent in the same period. The point here is this: if the government were interested in housing affordability then the last thing it would do is put more taxes on housing. If the government were interested in housing affordability, it would be looking at ways to rein in the states in terms of how they tax land, treat land and provide infrastructure and would be seeking to ensure that, in return for the billions that we spend through state governments, they have a reform program. It has chosen not to do this. Instead, it has come before this place and put forward a proposal which would see even more taxes, not just at the state level but now at the federal level. If the government is serious about housing affordability, it should think again. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|