|
senate vote 2023-09-13#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-01-19 11:52:01
|
Title
Bills — Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023; in Committee- Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and two others - in Committee - Government amendments
Description
<p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>With the concurrence of the Senate, the statement of reasons accompanying the request circulating this bill will be incorporated in Hansard immediately of the request to which they relate.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of three amendments:
- * the requests for amendments on sheet UC149 to the [Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6970)
- * the amendment on sheet UC142 to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and
- * the amendment on sheet ZC221 to the [Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6972) be agreed to.
- ### Request for amendment text (sheet UC149)
- See the wording [here](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6970_amend_11999215-4d54-4126-861a-d9f020f41b6e%22;rec=0).
- ### Amendment text (sheet UC142)
- > *(1) Clause 65, page 48 (line 24), omit “31 December 2028”, substitute “31 December 2026”.*
- ### Amendment text (sheet ZC221)
- > *(1) Schedule 2, page 19 (after line 3), after item 12, insert:*
- >
- >> *12A At the end of section 48*
- >>
- >> *Add:*
- >>
- >> *(3) The Investment Mandate may include a direction that the Board must, for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), disregard liabilities or loans of a specified type.*
<p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>I table four supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments and requests for amendments to be moved to the bills.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>The opposition has already made their position clear in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, and that is that we're not supporting it for the reasons that have been articulated on many occasions. But I am particularly keen to understand from the government exactly where the Housing Affordability Future Fund and associated bills actually are in terms of the financial commitments and the other commitments that have been made by the government in order for them to be able to seek the support of the necessary number of people in this chamber for the passage of these bills. Clearly, they have been able to do that, otherwise we wouldn't be standing here today.</p><p>We started off during the election with a $10 billion fund that was supposed to generate $500 million per year to go towards certain housing. We're not exactly sure about what that housing is because there doesn't appear to be any definition in the bill about what particular types of housing products actually are. Subsequent to the election commitment of a $10 billion off-balance-sheet, financially engineered, weird fund, we've seen a $2 billion commitment to the states and territories that was made some time ago in relation to housing, and this week we saw that the government has agreed to an additional $1 billion package in order to secure the Greens' support for this. So we now have a $13 billion housing fund. As we stand here today, we haven't even passed this legislation through this place. We have seen a 30 per cent blowout in the cost of this fund, and the legislation has not even been voted on yet.</p><p>What I am very keen to understand from the Minister is: is $13 billion all that has been committed to the passage of this piece of legislation, or have there been other deals done that we are unaware of? The reason I'm asking that is that I noticed yesterday and the day before, when the Greens made their statements publicly about their intent to now support this particular bill, that the Greens shadow housing spokesperson representative—or whatever they call them in the Greens—Mr Chandler-Mather made some comments in relation to some commitments he was seeking in relation to rent-capping. The first question I'd like to ask the Minister is: has the government made any commitments in relation to supporting rent-capping in order to get the support of the Australian Greens for the passage of this particular piece of legislation through this place?</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>I think the simplest way of answering the question is to say that the additional commitment that has been made over the course of the last few days and week is an additional $1 billion. The commitment that the government made earlier this year was in the context of the national cabinet discussions, and that was very public. I think everybody understands what the nature of that commitment was.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>Unfortunately, I don't think everybody does understand the nature of some of the deals that have been done, because, I've got to say, transparency doesn't seem to be a hallmark of this government. Whatever dirty deals that were done with the Greens in order to support this, I note that the Minister said the support was a $1 billion package. I wonder if you are able to provide details of what that $1 billion package actually looks like so the Australian public can get some sort of understanding about what the government is prepared to pay for in order to get these particular bills through this place.</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>It's an additional $1 billion to NHFIC—which will become Housing Australia—which will be used to build more affordable homes.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>I'm also keen to understand if any other deals have been done with any other crossbenchers for their support? As an example, and I will be specific, did the government make a deal with Senator David Pocock? Is the ACT receiving any additional funding over and above what their pro rata funding would otherwise have been from this fund?</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>The only arrangements the government has made will be reflected in the amendments that are before the Senate. The government has made a range of agreements in terms of issues like accessibility issues that will be reflected in the amendments and the voting position of the government in relation to those questions. Beyond the publicly available measures that the government has identified, there are no other measures—and not in relation to particular states, beyond what has been publicly available.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>STON (—) (): Just to be really clear and to get it on the record: did the government make any agreement or come to any arrangement with the Australian Greens in relation to inheritance taxes?</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>No.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>Did the government make any agreement or come to any arrangement with the Greens in order to get their support in relation to taxing on franking credits?</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>No.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>enator RUSTON (—) (): Did the government make any agreement or come to any arrangement with the Greens to gain their support on superannuation taxes?</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>I sense there's a pattern developing here, but no.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>That's really good news, because clearly the Australian public deserve to know the basis behind any of these deals. But obviously the proof of the accuracy of those responses will be in any decisions that get taken into the future in relation to those really important issues. We know the Australian Labor Party went to the election making a whole heap of promises to the Australian public about their behaviour, and subsequent to the election we have only seen them change their mind and backflip on so many of these things. The Australian public should be very concerned about the willingness of this government, what it's prepared to do, when it needs to get some piece of legislation through.</p><p>The reality is that as we're standing here today we've got a piece of legislation that we know is faulty—and I'll ask some questions of the minister in relation to that in a minute. We know it's a really dodgy piece of legislation, because if the government was really determined to put through and provide additional funding to this type of housing then why on Earth is it not on the balance sheet? That is the question every Australian taxpayer should be asking: why have they gone and engineered this weird financial instrument, which is only ever used in quite extreme circumstances like the future fund? Why on Earth have they put it off balance sheet, particularly at a time when they're making a whole heap of commitments in relation to the amount of money that's going to be expended each year as a result of this particular fund? Yet anybody who's done economics 101 would understand that what the government is promising here is not able to be delivered.</p><p>To that end, Minister: during your second reading concluding remarks you made a commitment that $500 million would be disbursed every year, plus indexation. First of all, I believe it was a funding cap of $500 million. In your contribution, Minister, you were quite clear that $500 million would be disbursed every year. So, I'm just seeking clarification from you: is it a funding cap of up to $500 million a year? Or is it that, as you said in your second reading statement, $500 million a year plus indexation will be disbursed every year subsequent to 2024?</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>There was a range of questions in there that went to, firstly, the bona fides of the government's arrangements that have been made in order to collaborate with colleagues on the crossbench to ensure the support of this legislation. The government has been completely transparent about those matters, entirely consistent with the government's approach on not just a range of issues that you raised there but on all the issues. Senators and the public can be absolutely confident that the arrangements that the government has reached are entirely public and entirely transparent. That stands in contrast to the efforts that were made in the passage of pieces of legislation over the course of the last three unhappy governments, and it stands in contrast to the secret arrangements that the Liberals have with the Nationals, which is never revealed. It is kept locked tight in a crypt somewhere over there in somebody's office. So we won't be lectured about transparency in relation to the arrangements here. There will be a series of amendments that will be dealt with by the Senate. The government's voting decisions on that will be entirely public.</p><p>I think your second broadly grouped set of questions, Senator Ruston, went to the nature of the fund itself. This is not an unusual arrangement. It's a very similar arrangement to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the National Reconstruction Fund, the medical research fund—I'm not calling it by its proper name, but I think we know the fund that I mean—and the Future Fund established by Mr Costello and Mr Howard. These are all allocations of funds that are designed to earn income in perpetuity, essentially—unless the parliament changes its approach to those funds—and to provide a source of income that is dedicated to a particular public policy purpose. The public policy purpose that is set out here is to build affordable homes to lift the supply of housing for low-income Australians who are experiencing housing stress. That is the public purpose. That is what that income will be allocated to.</p><p>In agreement with the crossbench, in order to be absolutely clear about what is going to be provided here, there is a minimum $500 million disbursement. As I've discussed, it may, of course, be more. If the income of the fund is higher, it is open to the fund to allocate more. There are arrangements that are dealt with in the second reading speech that go to the reviews and the capacity of those amounts to be adjusted over time for indexation purposes and other purposes.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>I just seek clarity there, Minister: did you say that it would be a minimum of $500 million per year disbursed?</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>Yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>I'm keen to understand what would happen in circumstances where the fund doesn't make a profit. Last year, for example, the fund wouldn't have made a profit, based on the information that's been provided in relation to how the fund might work—but we haven't seen the fund's mandate, so we actually are still a bit in the dark about exactly how you're going to run this fund. Minister, we know that there could be a situation where the fund actually loses money. There are quite clearly many opportunities for a fund of this nature not necessarily to make a five per cent return—a net return, because of course we have to pay interest on this fund before we actually start drawing any benefit from it. So I'm keen to understand: what is the mechanism for the guaranteeing of $500 million per year plus indexation? In circumstances where the fund does not generate the necessary $500 million, where is the money coming from?</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>I just want to check that I'm absolutely clear. You say 'the mechanism', Senator Ruston. The mechanism is that the legislation provides for a minimum $500 million disbursement. The nature of these kinds of funds, of which there are many in Australia and around the world, is that they have investment objectives and are designed to exist for a very long period of time. The investment objectives are set with regard to what is an expected and reasonable rate of return. The government will monitor the operations of this fund closely, as I'm sure the government of the Howard and Costello period monitored the operations of the Future Fund. That fund also had requirements it had to meet in relation to the superannuation obligations that the fund was designed to provide for. Subsequent governments—the Rudd and Gillard governments and the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments—have all had a responsibility to monitor the performance of those funds over time.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>Thank you for the history lecture, but I was quite keen to understand something specifically from you, Minister, with specific reference to this particular fund. In the circumstances where the fund does not make a profit sufficient to enable the full $500 million disbursement to be made out of the profits, how will the fund provide those disbursements?</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>It will provide the minimum disbursements in the event that the rate of return that is anticipated is not met in any given year. That minimum disbursement will be made over the long term. As is the nature of all these funds, the investment objectives will be met over time. That is in the nature of all these funding arrangements. They are not novel, and they're certainly not new to governments of various persuasions that have administered these funds over the course of many decades.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>Thank you, Minister, but I don't know that I can be much clearer. How will the funds that are going to be disbursed be provided for in the absence of the fund providing them? Are they going to be disbursed from the $10 billion? Are they going to be provided through other government appropriations or other budgetary mechanisms? If we do not have sufficient profit made in a particular year, where will the funds come from?</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>The funds will come from the fund. I should say that disbursements will come from the fund, if that's any clearer.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>Does that continue to happen if the fund doesn't make a return for a protracted period?</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|