Senator David Pocock's Dissenting Report

Introduction and overview

1.1My bill seeks to mandate in law a requirement that all current and future governments have a national housing and homelessness plan.

1.2Australians are suffering from an acute—and worsening—housing crisis. We need a national plan, involving all levels of government if we are to solve it.

1.3It is extraordinary that we do not have one and even more extraordinary that the Albanese Government, in the Chair’s report on this inquiry, suggests legislating such a plan is unnecessary contrary to the weight of evidence tendered in submissions and evidence to the committee.

1.4The major parties seem determined to keep living up to what Donald Horne wrote 60 years ago:

Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second-rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise.

1.5In so many other areas of public policy we set targets and measure our progress against them. We have legislated emissions reductions targets, legislated Closing the Gap targets, why not a legislated housing target or at least some agreed objectives, like ending homelessness?

1.6Eighty of the 81 submissions received through the NHHP Bill Inquiry are overwhelmingly supportive of the principle of a Commonwealth-led national plan for housing and homelessness, and the proposal to embed this in law.

1.7While I support the Chair’s report finding that the priority for this parliament is passing the government’s build to rent legislation, though only with amendment I would add, I reject the recommendation that the bill not be passed.

1.8The bill should be passed and this report sets out the evidence for that recommendation. It also captures suggestions for minor amendments that could improve the legislation.

The case for a National Plan

1.9Housing and homelessness problems are important because they damage individual welfare, community wellbeing and the very fabric of our society, and also because they harm national economic productivity.Housing problems that lead to these outcomes are complex and interconnected. Addressing them is especially challenging in a country with a federal governance structure as in Australia.

1.10Particularly because housing policy challenges involve powers and responsibilities fragmented across departments and levels of government, it is vital that policies and programs are designed to function in an integrated and co-ordinated way.

1.11Australia’s worsening housing problems are partly a long-term failure of policymaking—our failure to approach housing in a coherent, joined-up way. Even past Commonwealth governments that were more ambitious and active than many, as in the Rudd-Gillard era, saw the impacts of their initiatives quickly dissipate partly because they lacked any unifying framework or rationale. And the housing policy challenges we face today are even more pressing and more intractable now than they were then.

1.12If Australia has a serious ambition to confront its housing and homelessness policy challenges, it must recognise that this situation comes about partly because of the incoherent way successive governments have gone about addressing the issue.

1.13Establishing a meaningful, ambitious and evidence-based national plan or strategy is a fundamental precondition for genuine progress here. This cannot guarantee that Australia tackles its housing problems more effectively in future than it has in the recent past, but it certainly gives us a much better chance of doing so.

1.14Arguments of this kind were strongly echoed in many submissions to this Inquiry. Among consultees the need for a national Plan was generally seen as following from the increasingly dysfunctional state of Australia’s housing system and the nation’s significant and growing homelessness problem:

Only a plan, led and owned by the Australian Government, with its control over key housing-related powers including tax, social security and migration, can co-ordinate nationally consistent approaches to housing provision.[1]

…we need a plan that coordinates all government activities, to really address housing as a system.[2]

Unmet housing need and homelessness are complex problems affected by policy levers across several levels of government and many policy areas…[3]

A national plan is the only way to ensure that the full range of policy levers at federal, state and local levels, are engaged in complementary and efficient ways to achieve a fair and integrated system of public, community and private housing, including affordable homes. For the renters we advise and represent, a national housing and homelessness plan is not an academic or bureaucratic exercise. It is about where they will make their home next week, next year and next decade.[4]

The need to legislate for a national Plan

Concerns on the Government’s NHHP

1.15The Albanese Government’s commitment to establish Australia’s first-ever national plan on housing and homelessness is to be commended. But while it is acknowledged that a great deal of effort has been devoted to Plan development during this term of government, there are serious concerns on how this has been approached and progressed.

1.16These misgivings include:

the lack of an expert advisory committee driving the Plan;

the fundamentally flawed NHHP Issues Paper released in July 2023;

the concerning omissions in the January 2024 Consultation Summary, not least any consideration of tax reform;

the finalisation of the new National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness in advance of the Plan’s release; and

the absence of any subsequent dialogue or report on Plan progress.

1.17The lengthy delays in developing this plan and the vastly different approaches of successive governments to developing housing policy, serve only to further underscore the need to legislate this as a requirement of government.

The case for embedding the Plan in legislation

1.18Legislating the plan would enhance its standing, an especially necessary consideration in the context of a policy area—housing—that touches on multiple departments and agencies under both main levels of government.

1.19Legislating for the Plan is also crucial for its durability. A 10-year strategy must have sufficient resilience to endure through several terms of government. Clearly any new administration can seek to repeal existing laws, but a measure embedded in this way has a better chance of remaining operational.

1.20Moreover, in its configuration the bill before the Senate importantly provides a carefully designed framework that (a) defines a broad and ambitious scope for the Plan, and (b) specifies consultation and accountability arrangements that firm up how it is to be developed, maintained, and reported upon.

1.21While it is true that Australia’s constitution imposes limits on the legal powers available to the Commonwealth Government to make laws on topics such as housing, it is important to stress that the bill is fully compliant with these limitations. This comes, in part, from emulating aspects of the equivalent Canadian legislation, the National Housing Strategy Act 2019. It is the close similarities between Canada and Australia on governance and constitutional structures that make the Canadian framework highly instructive in our own context.

Wider support for embedding the Plan in legislation

1.22The case for legislating the national Plan is not simply a pet fancy of crossbench MPs and Senators. A conviction that Australia needs to embrace a more strategic approach to housing, embedded in law united 117 academics and other industry experts who wrote to the Housing Minister in support of this proposal earlier in 2024. Represented among the signatories were:

leading academics across the fields of planning, law, economics and social policy including Prof Nicole Gurran (University of Sydney), Prof Kevin Bell (Monash University), Prof Chris Leishman (University of South Australia) and Prof Eileen Baldry (UNSW)

well-known housing industry experts and analysts such as Saul Eslake (independent economist), Adrian Harrington (Chair, Housing for All Australians (NSW)), and Peter Mares (author and broadcaster)

leading industry stakeholders including Tone Wheeler (President, Australian Architecture Association), Alison Scotland (Exec Director, Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council) and Wendy Hayhurst (CEO, Community Housing Industry Association)

respected former politicians, highly knowledgeable on housing, including Doug Cameron (former Senator for NSW), John Alexander (former federal member for Bennelong) and Rob Stokes (former NSW Planning Minister)

social services experts including Dr Cassandra Goldie (CEO, ACOSS), Toby O’Connor (CEO, Vinnies) and Sharon Callister (CEO, Mission Australia).

1.2380 of the 81 submissions to this Inquiry likewise endorsed the notion of a long-term Plan backed by the legislation, as proposed by my bill. Again, for some this was partly justified in terms of clarifying responsibilities of different departments and/or levels of government. Thus, drawing attention to the multiple agencies involved in aspects of housing policy at the Commonwealth level, a highly fragmented framework, it was argued that:

This bill would require the government to have a Plan that could help clarify how these agencies should collaborate and collectively achieve shared objectives.[5]

The bill would contribute to stronger federal relations, by requiring the Commonwealth to formulate a long-term plan for housing and homelessness policy, and be accountable for progressively realising that plan through a sustained engagement in policy development with the states and territories.[6]

1.24Numerous consultees highlighted approval for the status and permanency for the Plan that could be furthered through legislation:

We agree with the proponents of this legislation that enshrining the Plan in law will enhance its standing and durability.[7]

The Bill will enable Australians to hold governments accountable for their decisions on housing by introducing a formal yardstick to measure their action on this crisis, ensuring the Plan doesn’t become yet another well-meaning but forgotten document.[8]

[Since] transforming the housing market is a long-term proposition, the institutions that support it need to be designed to survive beyond the current electoral cycle.[9]

Whereas historically the Australian Government’s involvement in housing and homelessness policy development has been patchy, even erratic, the Bill’s framework would require the Government to apply itself to national policy leadership in a sustained way, continually accounting to the Parliament and the Australian people. The Bill would not guarantee a successful Plan; that would still ultimately depend on the Government and the quality of its policies and implementation. But the Bill would make a successful Plan much more likely.[10]

1.25Many contributors also commended the bill’s consultation and accountability dimensions. For example, referring to features of the Canadian NHS Act emulated in the Senate bill, one submission argued:

…we believe that the public accountability measures within the Canadian Act have been particularly important, including creation of an independent advocacy role, the requirements for public processes including reviews and consultations, and the obligations for public reporting and ministerial responses. Ensuring similar reporting and accountability is delivered by an Act for an Australian national strategy would also be critical.[11]

1.26Similarly:

One other crucial element of the National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024 is the incorporation of consumer voice mechanisms. A fundamental principle in disability rights is the idea of ‘Nothing about us without us’.[12]

The Bill will enable Australians to hold governments accountable for their decisions on housing by introducing a formal yardstick to measure their action on this crisis, ensuring the Plan doesn’t become yet another well-meaning but forgotten document [Anglicare].

1.27The sole non-positive consultation submission, by the NSW Government, expressed the concern that:

The bill would be substantially improved by explicit acknowledgment of the primary role of State and Territory Governments in housing and homelessness, and by including State and Territory Governments in the list of agencies and stakeholders the Commonwealth Government must work collaboratively with in the development or implementation of the proposed National Housing and Homelessness Plan.[13]

1.28However, as explained below, these are concerns easily addressed without departing at all from the spirit of the proposals.

Possible amendments to the bill

1.29A number of consultation responses proposed specific amendments to certain clauses in the bill. Arguably most significant were drafting suggestions relevant to the NSW Government’s concerns set out above. On this point the CHIA/National Shelter submission helpfully commented as follows:

While recognising that Federal legislation cannot obligate state and territory governments to perform specific housing and homelessness actions, we believe it would strengthen the bill if their role was formally recognised.

We suggest that: sections 9 and 10 could be amended as follows:

‘state and territory governments’ are listed first under collaborators in clause 9 (1)

The role of the Housing and Homelessness Ministers meeting is acknowledged as a source of advice under 9 (2)

the roles of states, territories and the Housing and Homelessness Ministers meeting in Plan implementation is specified in clause 10.[14]

1.30Other suggested amendments that I believe also worthy of consideration included:

Clause 8 should comprise an additional bullet point (k) under paragraph (1) so that the direction of the National Housing and Homelessness Plan includes ‘improving health outcomes that are associated with housing conditions’.[15]

That a definition of ‘adequate housing’ [should] be included in Section 5 of the Bill.[16]

Sections 8 and 9 of the Bill [should] articulate the roles and responsibilities of all levels of government in developing, implementing and reporting on the Plan.[17]

The Explanatory Memorandum stresses the intention is that the Plan should … articulate with other national and federal strategies, including we assume the National Disability Strategy and the Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children. Furthermore, to be effective these other relevant government plans and policies should similarly articulate with the National Housing and Homelessness Plan. We therefore suggest this could be made explicit under Section 9, the process for preparing the Plan.[18]

…[i]t would be sensible to ensure the [National Housing Consumer] Council represents all parts of Australia. We note that in Section 20 (3) b the bill makes clear the Council has to be representative of the diversity of the population. Perhaps add ‘in terms of age, gender, race and location’.

…

The legitimacy and credibility of the Council will be enhanced if its selection is via a public and transparent process. This should be specified in the bill as part of clause 20.[19]

1.31A number of other submissions recommended that the bill include explicit reference to the necessary representation of various groups on the National Housing Consumer Council or otherwise. These included people with lived experience of homelessness, people with disability, representatives of public health organisations, older people experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness and student housing advocates.

Conclusion

1.32The Chair’s report records the reasoned support for the legislation from the overwhelming majority of consultees and witnesses. Its substantive recommendation, to not pass the bill, is not only discordant, but also justified in flimsy and wholly unsubstantiated terms.

1.33The main stated objections, that the proposal would ‘duplicate’ the government’s existing work to progress the Plan and bodies already operational, simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Far from replicating existing work, the legislation would embed and build upon that work. And, similarly, the proposed consultation and oversight framework would entirely complement rather than replicate already established agencies.

1.34I recommend that the bill be passed with amendments as outlined above.

1.35That the bill be passed with amendments as outlined in this report.

Senator David Pocock

Independent Senator for the Australian Capital Territory

Footnotes

[1]COTA Australia, Submission 16, p. [2].

[2]Dr Sophie Scamps MP, Submission 51, p. 2.

[3]Victorian Council of Social Service, Submission 67, p. [2].

[4]Tenants Victoria, Submission 56, p. 3.

[5]Australian Council of Social Service, Submission 40, p. 3.

[6]Dr Chris Martin and Professor Hal Pawson, Submission 14, p. 3.

[7]Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council, Submission 5, p. 1.

[8]Anglicare Australia, Submission 41, p. 2.

[9]Community Housing Industry Association, Homelessness Australia and National Shelter, Submission 54, p. 4.

[10]Dr Chris Martin and Professor Hal Pawson, Submission 14, p. 2.

[11]Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, Submission 38, p. 12.

[12]Associate Professor Ilan Wiesel, Submission 1, p. [3].

[13]NSW Government, Submission 70, pp. 1–2.

[14]Community Housing Industry Association, Homelessness Australia and National Shelter, Submission 54, p. 5.

[15]Asthma Australia, Submission 7, p. 4.

[16]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 31, p. 4.

[17]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 31, p. 4.

[18]Community Housing Industry Association, Homelessness Australia and National Shelter, Submission 54, p. 5.

[19]Community Housing Industry Association, Homelessness Australia and National Shelter, Submission 54, p. 5.