Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (09:25): I'm going to start my speech a little bit differently than I had anticipated, because I was struck by something that Senator Grogan said. While Senator Bragg is a good friend of mine, I have to say, when I woke up this morning, I did not think at all about Senator Bragg or what he was doing—no offence intended. I do note that he often does have a very crisp white shirt, though.

I also note your comments, Senator Grogan, about Josie and when she woke up. Whilst I have never woken up in my car, I did, for many years, face housing insecurity with my children, and I do understand how difficult and how challenging that is and the need to have security of housing and that roof over your head. I agree with your comment that Josie doesn't care who builds it, but I think we should care about who owns it.

We have a problem with the fact that we have global institutional investors who will own these properties that Australians will live in. That's something we should have a think about, because, if we are building homes for Australians, it's our view that Australians should own those homes. Our priority should be that we have the option to own a home and that we should have the opportunity to own a home, not outsourcing that to some globalist entity who we then pay our incomes to in rent.

I also have a problem with the fact—I've spoken about this before—that women are allowed to access our super for emergency expenses of paying rent to someone that could be one of these global entities, but we can't access it to invest in our own housing for housing security for ourselves and our children. I would like someone to explain to me why one of those things is 'raiding the piggy bank of my own money' and the other isn't.

I would think that raiding my piggy bank of super to have a roof over the heads of me and my children is a better thing when I own that property than me paying it in rent to a globalist entity like BlackRock or somebody else like that. I think that's something we need to think about. We're losing our perspective here.

We need to get back to the basics and the fundamentals of the fact that we actually have a right to own our own housing, and somebody else shouldn't dictate to us what that should look like or suggest to us that we hate unions et cetera because we are opposed to the way they act. Labor should be banning Cbus and the CFMEU from any involvement in the HAFF. That is a reality.

I don't think there should be any question about that. That's not because people hate the unions or the CFMEU. They hate the misconduct, they hate the corruption and they hate the impact that it has on everyday people.

Given the close connection and control between Cbus and the CFMEU, allowing Cbus to participate in the HAFF risks its integrity. Anybody who suggests otherwise is not looking at this plainly or clearly. Cbus has an obligation to spend its members' funds in the best interests of their members' retirement.

However, super funds like Cbus make payments to unions masked as contracts or sponsorship agreements, and these types of payments are made by Cbus to the CFMEU. What is also alarming is the destruction the CFMEU has caused in the construction sector, at a time when building more homes has never been more urgent. So when we're looking at barriers to getting things done—I was actually listening to Senator Roberts.

Many years ago, it did take months to build a house. Guess what? Now it takes closer to years to build a house.

That is because of the red tape involved. That's because of the different hurdles at local and state levels that make it so hard for people to build homes. But there are also hurdles in construction that are brought in and are impacted by measures introduced by unions.

Numerous sources, including the Real Estate Institute of Queensland, have highlighted that the conditions of the CFMEU enterprise bargaining agreements are leading to an increase in cost of up to 30 per cent. When I spoke about this the other day, I just made it very simple in terms of what that means for what is now an entry-level dwelling in many cities across our country—$800,000, of which 30 per cent is another $240,000.

Good luck trying to save another $240,000 when you're already struggling to save your initial deposit. That's completely heartbreaking for young people who want to buy their own home. How do they even fathom that?

Where do they begin? That is unacceptable. We have heard allegations from state and federal detectives that the CFMEU New South Wales state secretary, Darren Greenfield, boasted to corrupt building firms that he could secure them lucrative contracts on major construction projects financed by Cbus because of his influence in the fund.

That in itself should be disturbing. That in itself should be dealt with, but it hasn't been. The Australian Financial Review also reported that Greenfield previously told a building company owner that he would exert his influence over Cbus to ensure the fund instructed the lead contractor to use subcontractors favoured by the CFMEU—not the best Australian small business or the best local business or the business that provides the best value but those favoured by the CFMEU.

Have a think about that. Despite purporting to take a hard line against the criminality in the CFMEU, Labor has refused to consider deregistering the union. Again, this isn't about hating the union, as the other side has said; this is about hating the conduct and hating the fact that this conduct continues unchecked. 'Let's put our head in the sand and pretend it's not happening.' Well, on this side of the chamber, we are not going to do that.

Labor and Cbus have refused to recognise any issue with CFMEU representatives sitting on the board of a $94 billion fund, and Cbus has refused to cut its ties with the CFMEU despite the allegations and evidence of corrupt and intimidating behaviour. That's extraordinary. I don't think any other organisation in our country would be granted the same tacit consent to behave in that same way.

Until Cbus has cut its ties with the CFMEU, it is an inappropriate party through which to undertake government business, and there can be no question about it—none whatsoever. So what is Senator Bragg wanting to do here? The Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 would prohibit the HAFF from investing in housing assets or entities financed by Cbus Super to ensure taxpayer funds are left out of the criminal hands of the CFMEU.

We shouldn't have any issue with that. We should all be in complete agreeance that that is the right way forward. By inserting an additional limitation in the HAFF's governing legislation, this bill will prohibit investments into housing related projects that Cbus has invested in or will invest in.

We've seen the impacts it's had on commercial construction and the construction of infrastructure in this country, the cost blowouts. So now, despite the fact that we have evidence of that criminal conduct, we're going to say: 'Yes, now, come into the residential construction sector. Come and help us build houses so that they cost more and take longer whilst we are in the midst of a housing crisis.' It's nothing short of madness.

I can't think of anything but the fact that, as I said the other day, Labor has no interest in probity, no interest in transparency and no interest in stopping the criminal conduct of the CFMEU, because it is opening more doors for it to infiltrate more broadly across our construction sector. As it stands, the HAFF can invest taxpayer funds into projects and entities financed by Cbus.

Cbus Super and CFMEU, as Senator Bragg has often said, are conjoined twins. They are, it's clear. In the 2022-23 financial year, Cbus paid the CFMEU $1.25 million, including $233,000 paid to the CFMEU's Victorian branch for a sponsorship agreement.

Let's repeat that: Cbus paid the CFMEU $1.25 million in 2022-23, and the Victorian branch was given $233,000 for a sponsorship agreement. Does that mean 'Cbus' gets written on the CFMEU T-shirts? I don't know what it's for.

I would be keen to understand what that looked like. I hope they're really nice T-shirts. Senator Cash: And made in Australia, because I don't think they are!

Senator KOVACIC: Indeed, I would hope they are Australian made. It is no surprise, therefore, that APRA imposed additional licence conditions on Cbus to engage an independent expert to review whether their CFMEU board members are meeting their legal duties. Is this because APRA hates the unions?

Is this because APRA hates the CFMEU? I don't think so. I don't think it's because they hate them.

I think it's because APRA is very, very worried about the actions of the CFMEU, as they rightly should be and as everybody in this chamber should be. Just because you call someone out, just because you call out misconduct, doesn't mean you have a hatred for that organisation or for what their mission is. But we are right in this.

If we can't call people out in this place for egregious misconduct and criminal activity, then when will we do it? How can we face the people who have elected us to represent them here if we remain silent on these things? The Labor government and APRA should be pushing Cbus to cut ties with the CFMEU.

This means kicking the three CFMEU directors off the board and stopping the endless flow of workers' money to the CFMEU. Let's not forget that the money that Cbus has is the money from its workers, the money that it is meant to be investing for the benefit of its workers. On the one hand, we are in agreement that the CFMEU should be in administration; we actually think it should be deregistered, but administration is fine.

But I fail to see how an entity that has been put into administration could be receiving money from a super fund that belongs to members of that fund. I would like somebody to explain that to me and why it is okay, because I don't think it is. Just a quick update, before I finish, on where the HAFF is at the moment.

This is Labor's flagship housing policy, the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, and so far it has built 17 homes here in the ACT. I was listening to Senator Bragg in estimates when he was questioning Labor on how many dwellings they had built. I was just trying to remember who was in the room at the time, but it escapes me right now.

The comment was that they had acquired and converted 340 houses from existing builds. It was an interaction between Senator Bragg and Senator Gallagher in the economics committee. I remember Senator Bragg's shock at the comment, 'acquired and converted'.

It means they bought 340 houses that had already been built, and they effectively renovated them so that they were suitable for whatever type of housing they were seeking to put into the market. That means the government had actually entered the market and purchased 340 houses during a housing crisis, which meant young Australians or entry-level buyers could then not buy them.

Was that lost on anybody? They've just created an additional barrier to entry for young Australians. It's quite extraordinary.

Instead of building homes, Labor are building bureaucracies and barriers to entry. The Housing Australia Future Fund has been one of the greatest public policy failures in recent history. They promised to build 1.2 million homes by 2030, and—this is not me saying it—advice from Treasury has revealed that this promise will be broken.