News that the government plans to reintroduce the Housing Australia Future Fund bill to the Senate next week could be seen as an act of futility, an effort to place pressure on the Greens to get out of the way of a housing affordability solution, or a threat to dissolve parliament and send voters to an early election.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The $10 billion initiative, at least on the surface, seems like an innovative approach to the construction of affordable housing with the intention to invest the money in the stock market and use the earnings each year to fund new builds.
The fund will support the construction of 30,000 new social and affordable housing properties through a minimum $500 million each year over the next five years.
This includes 4000 properties for women and children facing family and domestic violence and older women who are at risk of homelessness.
The Coalition are naturally against Labor's policy and the Greens believe it constitutes a $10 billion gamble on the stock market due to its volatility.
The party wants direct investment in an ambitious construction plan instead, as well as a freeze on rent prices - which the government has no appetite for.
Others on the crossbench believe the fund and anticipated housing numbers do not go far enough to meet demand.
It is difficult to see how the bill without any changes will win the much-needed support of the Greens to pass, even though it should.
Greens leader Adam Bandt last month said the party was open to renegotiations, however, and was unperturbed by the prospect of an election two years before one was due.
"But if Labor wants to go to an election on the basis that Labor wants rent increases to rise by as much as any landlord or property investor wants and there to be no limit on rent increases, then that would be, you know, bring it on," he said at the time.
An early election seem crazy, given it has been a mere 14 months since the last one was held.
But the threat of an early election is real.
When the bill was blocked, the government declared it a failure to pass under section 57 of the Constitution, setting up a trigger for a double dissolution election should the Senate refuse the bill once again when it came back into the chamber.
Whether of not it would be advantageous for the government to pull that trigger is another question.
Voters don't like to reward governments that put in motion an early election, although there is nothing to indicate there would be a change of government should one take place.
Having the entire Senate go to an election at the same time could create a bigger headache for Labor as it could lead to a more fickle make-up, due to the reduced quota for a candidate's election.
You only need to cast your mind back to the results of the 2016 double dissolution election which saw a record number of 20 crossbenchers elected.
The lower quota could possibly work in Labor's favour due to the government's fairly strong popularity though.
The prospect of an early election is possibly more a risk for the Greens who would undoubtedly be blamed for sending voters to the polls early for stridently blocking an ambitious solution to housing in the midst of a housing crisis.
So while Adam Bandt might bullishly want to goad the government to "bring it on", perhaps it might be easier and more politically astute to graciously capitulate to the housing fund and move on.
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark www.examiner.com.au
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter: @examineronline
- Follow us on Instagram: @examineronline
- Follow us on Google News:
Political reporter for Australian Community Media, based in Hobart.
Political reporter for Australian Community Media, based in Hobart.
