Walls closing in on Labor's $10b social housing fund

Opposition is mounting to the Albanese government's social housing fund, which risks defeat in the Senate unless its ambition is ratcheted up in line with crossbencher demands.

The Greens and independent senators David Pocock and Lidia Thorpe have outlined their concerns about the bill in dissenting reports to the Senate inquiry, with the Greens labelling the $10 billion Housing Future Fund "not fit for purpose".

Labor needs the Greens and two crossbenchers to pass the housing fund bill, which would result in 30,000 new social housing dwellings being built in the first five years, with up to $500 million spent each year.

In their response, the Greens said the fund was "deeply unambitious and does not provide certainty in housing investment".

"It's clear the government has no support for a housing plan that will make the crisis worse - it's time for the government to accept that they've failed and agree to the almost universal call to invest billions of extra dollars in social housing," Greens spokesperson for housing and homelessness Max Chandler-Mather said.

He said the government would need to come to the table and negotiate with the crossbench to invest more in social and affordable housing.

The party wants an investment of $5 billion a year in public, community and affordable housing and a national freeze on rent increases.

Senator Pocock and Senator Thorpe also want more ambition given Australia's worsening housing crisis.

The proposed legislation was generally well received by the housing sector, including community housing organisations and research bodies, as a step in the right direction that could be scaled up over time. 

Groups such as Anglicare Australia welcomed the scheme but said the measures did not match the scale of the housing crisis. 

Several stakeholders supported doubling the fund to $20 billion in line with Grattan Institute modelling that would result in 60,000 dwellings constructed over the next five years, which would reverse the decline in social housing as a share of the total housing stock.

The $500 million annual disbursement cap also raised concerns, with many calling for the removal of the cap or for it to be indexed to inflation so that it lifts from year to year.

There was also debate about how dependable the scheme would be as a source of funding, including concerns about its link to stock market returns, with several calls for some kind of guarantee or floor to ensure there was always funding going into social and affordable housing.