We re-join it as Allegra Spender asks:

Today’s rental affordability index shows two per cent of rentals are affordable for essential workers like teachers. The new homes bonus was supposed to incentivise new homes and help fix this but were just that a city likely to be this target, the effectiveness of this incentive is under question.

Would you consider reconstructing the bonus scheme to help this dates to critical rezoning, speedup approvals and build infrastructure that the states need to enforce these targets?

Clare O’Neil thanks Spender for the question and says:

It is a good one and ended reflects the real seriousness in which she engages in the housing debate. We have a crossbench here wherefore many of these one — wonderful people, housing is a critical issue in their community and they work with our government and the member for when web is one of those.

They asked about issues facing Australian renters and I agree with her, this is a critical concern of our government. We have a housing crisis in our country that has been cooking 40 years and really, the people who are bearing the biggest point of this are people who are in rental accommodation. They are feeling it in rental going up too fast and too frequently, they feel in the lack of power they have in negotiating with their landlords and speaker, a very distressing is chair of renters tell us they are they are actively fearing practically becoming homeless and that should not be happening in a country like Australia.

So one thing that the member for Wentworth has been constructive in working with the government with is understanding what the crux of this issue facing our rental population is and that is for this 40 year period, our country has not been building enough homes.

For a long time in Australia, the Commonwealth government wash their hands of this problem. As you know, most of those who are in office and government they were checked out of housing that they did not even have a Housing Minister to negotiate with. We have changed that and one of the main ways we are engaging with states and territories is throwing something the National Housing Accord. Instead of saying that our government would not take any responsibility, we have stuck — stepped up, with leaders across the country including local government and the local sector and said, if you want to get a change we need to make a difference to how…

There is a point of order on relevance and O’Neil has to stick to the topic, finishing with:

I am talking about the National Housing Accord is because the bonus that the member asked me about this at the end of the National Housing Accord. We are in constant negotiation and discussion with the states and we have a problem in our country when it has become too hard, too difficult and too lengthy to have a home built in this country estates are critically important to solving the problem and… The $3 billion incentive that the member asked me about as she has mentioned sits at the end of the Accord target and of course the state are always keen to see that money flowing to them fast enough but what I would say to the member is that the $43 billion package that sits across all of our housing policies

Quite a big part of that actually flows through the states so we had as part of the original negotiation, $1.5 billion in funding, much of that flow to the states. That Future Fund went to the states, we have $10 billion which is going to the states to deliver 10,000 homes until billion but went to them for social housing so there is a really strong partnership there and what a lot of money flowing there.