Event: BCA Chief Executive Bran Black interview with ABC RN Breakfast

Speakers: ABC RN Breakfast Host Patricia Karvelas; Business Council of Australia Chief Executive Bran Black

Date: 15 October 2024

Topics: Housing, supply, economics, productivity, council report card, national reform fund, planning approvals, industrial relations

Patricia Karvelas Host, ABC RN Breakfast: The business lobby is calling on the Federal Government to turbo charge Australia's housing supply by creating a new fund to override slow moving councils.
The proposal is one of a series being put forward to boost the sector which is struggling to meet the Government's national housing targets. But as big business continues to court the Government on housing policy, it's also growing increasingly vocal about the Albanese Government's workplace agenda. Bran black, who's the Chief Executive of the BCA, the Business Council of Australia, and our guest, Bran, welcome back.

Bran Black Chief Executive, Business Council: Thanks so much for having me.

Patricia: Let’s start on the housing pitch. You're asking for money to get approvals moving faster. How would it work?

Bran: So, we described this as a national reform fund, and it wouldn't just apply with respect to housing and the efficiency of housing systems. It would be a fund that's designed to promote productivity enhancing measures all the way across our Commonwealth, and it's designed based on a model that is tried and tested, that works. We had competition payments made in the 1990s and early 2000s to states and territories. About $5 billion in federal funds was invested, and that's returned today an average of about $60 billion a year to our GDP. So what we're saying is that if we were to take the same approach, you could apply it with respect to productivity enhancing measures in the housing space, so for efficiency of planning systems and so forth, and that would help, of course, deliver on our supply requirements, which is critical in terms of addressing our housing need, but would also have other benefits in terms of potentially addressing payroll tax issues, looking at stamp duty and so forth.
We think that this is a great idea that should be rolled out as quickly as possible.

Patricia: Now, we were just speaking with Michael Sukkar, who’s the shadow housing spokesperson, he questioned the money that's going to states to accelerate the construction of new housing, suggesting perhaps it should be held back. Would you support that?

Bran: Well, what we're saying with respect to our particular proposal is that it should be money that's paid to states once they actually go about making the reform. So, if you were to take by way of example, stamp duty or reform in that space, what you'd say is that the money would be paid once you had legislation in place that had the effect of transitioning incrementally, of course, but transitioning from stamp duty through to land tax. So, we think it's important that you actually see the evidence of change before you make the payment.

Patricia: So, you don't believe in a cut, it's just about the way it's delivered?

Bran: That's right. We think it's important to make sure that you're incentivising states and territories to undertake the reforms, but you should be making payments once the reforms are completed.

Patricia: That's interesting. The other point, the point that was made by the opposition, is that 1.2 million homes won't be achieved. Do you agree with that?

Bran: I think the evidence would certainly suggest that. If you look at those figures, that translates to about nine homes per 1000 people built each and every year over the course of the next five years. At the moment, we're on track to deliver six homes per 1000 people. So, there's a gap. What's interesting when you look at the figures, historically, we've actually seen a decline in the number of people on average living in each dwelling, from 2.8 in the 1980s to about 2.5 now. Now, interestingly enough, that relatively small gap translates into 1.2 million homes, and that's what, of course, has been identified by the Federal Government and the states as part of the (National Housing) Accord, as the target that we should strive towards over the course of the next five years. We think it's really important to have that bold, ambitious target, and we support the fact that the target exists. But what's absolutely clear is that we do need to take additional steps to address the fundamental issues that are facing us around housing now, and that is, how do we get supply moving.

Patricia: So, you don’t believe it should be dumped?

Bran: No, we don't think that we should dump the target by any stretch. We think it's important to try and back in the setting of the target with important measures that will enhance supply, and that's what our report has been designed to do.

Patricia: Okay, so given we're so close to an election, and it seems now we really have to compare and contrast policies, we are at the pointy end. Do you urge the opposition to keep the target? Because Michael Sukkar suggested they would dump it.

Bran: I think it’s important to recognise that we have a need for additional homes, and the consequence of that is that we should have targets, and we should be ambitious with targets. So, we would support having this target in place, and we would support putting in place those measures that are necessary in order to advance additional supply. So, we've spoken in our report about steps that we can take with respect to efficiencies within the planning system. We've talked about zoning, we've talked about how we can address supply issues in relation to building materials and labour. We've talked about what we need to do with respect to infrastructure as well. We've got more than 25 different recommendations. They all go to that critical point of how we can get supply moving. What's really interesting is that with many of these recommendations, we're not putting forward ideas that are brand new. We're putting forward ideas that are already being done in some jurisdictions. So, what we're effectively saying is, if we could apply these good ideas that are already in place in so many jurisdictions already. If we could apply them in every jurisdiction, we'd have a much better shot at addressing our overarching housing there.

Patricia: Bran, just in the last minute we have together. Do you support the definition of a small business to be changed from 15 to 25?

Bran: Look, I think it's an important change and we've seen this advocacy via COSBOA and ACCI, and I think they are best placed because of their constituencies, to talk about what that particular definition should be. But what is absolutely necessary, and this is where their recommendation goes to. What is necessary is that we take steps in order to support businesses and at the moment, we're not doing enough to support businesses. We're seeing that insolvencies are at record highs over the course of the last six months. We're seeing that productivity is stalling. Economic growth is stalling. What we need to do is advance ideas that are going to recognise that six in seven jobs ultimately come about through businesses being successful, and that at the end of the day, it's the success of the private sector that drives our overarching national prosperity.

Patricia: We're out of time. Thank you for your time this morning.

Bran: Thanks so much for yours.