When Labor introduced the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) in March, the Australian Greens took the principled stance of blocking the legislation and became the party for renters. As the conflict persisted, the Greens watered down their demands, weakened their opposition, and in September, discarded the goodwill of tenants nationwide by passing the HAFF. What was a feeling of palpable unity amongst one-third of the country morphed into profound disappointment. What happened, and what can we learn from this betrayal?
The HAFF
Australia is experiencing one of the worst housing crises in its history. Rents have risen exponentially in every state and territory and more than 640,000 households are experiencing housing stress or homelessness. Urban sprawl is accelerating and social housing waitlists have blown out, with more than 55,000 in the queue for a public home in NSW.
The federal Labor government, attributing this crisis to inadequate supply, introduced the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) in March. The bill proposed a $10 billion investment fund where its earnings, capped at $500 million, would fund social and affordable housing projects across Australia. The ALP argues the HAFF will see the creation of 20,000 social homes, and 10,000 affordable homes — specifically for frontline workers — over the next 5 years, starting in 2024-25. The ALP have touted the HAFF as the solution to the ongoing crisis, deeming it as not just “good social policy, but good economic policy”. But does the HAFF even resemble something close to a solution?
The Greens
The HAFF is a deeply flawed proposal. Chief among its faults is the method for funding these new homes. Unlike hospitals and schools, whose construction is directly funded by state and territory governments, the HAFF leaves the funding of shelter, a human right, to the mystical and unpredictable whims of the stock market. Max Chandler Mather, the Green’s MP and housing spokesperson, has repeatedly identified the Future Funds loss in 2022 of 1.2%, equivalent to $120 million, acknowledging how the HAFF gambles the shelter of those most in need to volatile financial markets.
Further, the HAFF’s returns, if any, would be invested into the construction of social and affordable homes. “Social” homes is an ambiguous term that refers to both public (government-owned) housing, and “community housing”, typically owned by third-party providers, such as charity groups like Mission Australia. The HAFF then allows both the state and federal governments to defer the housing of vulnerable people to community housing providers, who can charge more than 25-30% of the household income public housing tenants pay, and are not required to follow the same stringent eviction rules.
The HAFF has been fittingly berated by the Greens for what it neglects to include; the HAFF, and the ALP’s housing policy more broadly, provides nothing for renters. There is no plan for rent controls, such as rent caps, no plan to expand access to or substantially increase rent assistance payments, and no plan to end no-grounds evictions nationwide. Further, the Albanese Government’s 2023-24 budget refuses to remove the significant tax breaks offered to landlords and property developers. Parliamentary Budget Office costings estimate that in 2023-24 the Federal Government will lose approximately $40bn to tax concessions, namely negative gearing and capital gains discounts. These funds could be directly spent on the construction of more homes or rent relief provisions.
In blocking the HAFF, the Greens decided to fight for one-third of the country. Finally, tenants, who had been consistently exploited under decades of neoliberal housing policy, were having their rights platformed on a national level. The Australian Greens drew a clear line in the sand, they demanded; a two-year freeze on rent increases, a two per cent annual cap on rent hikes, and a $5 billion annual spend on affordable housing.
The Green’s harnessed the frustration of tenants nationwide, launching an immense campaign for renters’ rights, initiating a nationwide door-knocking campaign in Labor-held electorates and a social media campaign explaining the HAFF and its failings. This pressure secured minor concessions from the ALP, namely, a $2 billion one-off payment to the social housing accelerator fund, and an amendment to the HAFF which mandates a minimum spend of $500 million a year. The Greens even forced a national cabinet meeting concerning renters’ rights, from which state and territory premiers expressed a non-binding commitment to standardise rental policy and conditions nationwide.
The Great Betrayal
On 11 September, the Greens agreed to pass the HAFF upon its reintroduction after securing an additional $1 billion for social and affordable homes. The radical, yet reasonable, demands for a national rent freeze, rent caps, and a $5 billion annual spend on affordable housing were watered-down and abandoned. In capitulating to Labor and passing the HAFF, the Greens threw away the goodwill of renters they had mobilised and ceded to the neoliberal logic that this housing crisis is an issue of supply, not structural inequality. Their submission brings into question the utility of the Greens as a protest party; what role does the Australian Greens play in holding the “balance of power”, if they are unwilling to exercise this power completely? They often market themselves as the party holding the government to account, but in yielding twice this year — first to the Safeguard Mechanism and second to the HAFF — I fail to see how they are fulfilling this mandate. The Australian Greens should be making it inhospitable for Liberal or Labor governments to govern when they propose legislation that fails to resolve the economic inequality and harm facing one-third of Australians.
Their submission to the HAFF and the Safeguard Mechanism reveals that the Greens are far more concerned with their optics and electoral prospects. The 2022 Federal Election has been hailed as a “greenslide” by party leader Adam Bandt, achieving four seats in the lower house and eleven seats in the Senate. With Labor threatening a double dissolution projected to gain them seats, and touting disingenuous arguments that the Greens oppose emergency housing for survivors of domestic violence, I can only assume the Greens ceded in fear of being seen as an uncooperative party, forfeiting the reasonable demands they drew in blocking the HAFF to appear more palatable.
Ultimately, this betrayal is a reminder of the futility of political parties in fighting for structural change. It is a poignant reminder for student residents, renters, and public housing tenants that housing justice cannot come from the parties that perpetually seek re-election. Change on this scale can only be won from the streets, from a mobilised and militant force of tenants fighting for rent controls, legal protections, and a radical reworking of how Australia’s housing system operates. We have to fight for a system that does not prioritise the interests of the landlord or developer, but the people, who are all entitled to safe and affordable housing.