Does the property industry back the Voice?

Writing in an op-ed published in The Canberra Times, Ms Collins noted that as of Australia’s 2021 census, 24,930 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were homeless. That means that in a country where 3.8 per cent of the population identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, they make up 20 per cent of the homeless population.

“The Voice to Parliament is about advice,” Ms Collins said.

“It will be a committee of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who will give advice to the Parliament and government on issues that affect their community”.

Housing and homelessness clearly does.

Broadly, the issues the body will primarily tackle have been identified as health, education, housing and employment, and Ms Collins said that while the body’s advice would be non-binding, its insight would deliver “real improvements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”.

“I know that the Voice will help us get better results in housing,” Ms Collins said, urging a “yes” vote.

With the country’s advocates across the property and real estate sectors consistently calling for government action to improve housing outcomes in the face of a lack of supply of homes for sale, rent, and available through social housing initiatives, The Voice could be considered a question that will have an impact on the issues within their purview.

Real Estate Business reached out to the state, territory and national bodies representing the real estate industry to ask whether they believed that The Voice was important to improving housing outcomes in Australia.

The Real Estate Institute of Australia (REIA) president, Hayden Groves, responded that he understood that housing could be closely examined by the advisory body, should the Australian public vote it into existence.

“With a shortage of housing supply across Australia, additional advisory input into the development of affordable, more accessible homes would be welcomed by the REIA as part of our strategy of making better use of the homes we already have and adding to the current housing stock,” Mr Groves said.

“Should the ‘yes’ vote prevail on 14 October, helping Indigenous Australians into suitable affordable homes ought to be one of the new body’s first considerations,” he added.

Antonia Mercorella, CEO of the Real Estate Institute of Queensland, responded on behalf of her organisation, stating they “respectfully acknowledge the importance of consultation with First Nations persons regarding our future housing direction. The voices of First Nations persons should lead discussions on initiatives and programs focused on improving housing outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.

Representatives for the Real Estate Institutes of NSW, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia, Northern Territory and the ACT either declined to comment or did not respond to an initial request for comment. When provided with the statement from the REIA, almost all of the member bodies stated they deferred to the national institute’s stance, with the exception of the Real Estate Institute of Tasmania, which again declined to comment.

The Property Council of Australia, meanwhile, has taken a more proactive – and less trepidatious – approach to the conversation. A statement that was published on the council’s website in August, stated: “The Property Council supports the principles of the Voice and the desire of First Nations peoples to have their position heard on legislation, policy and programs that impact them. The referendum presents an opportunity to consider that direct input for the first time.”

“We acknowledge the Uluru Statement from the Heart, its principles and sentiment. We recognise the Uluru Statement as an invitation to amend our Constitution to provide for the Voice,” the body stated.

At the same time, the council was clear that it was not advocating on behalf of a yes vote, commenting: “We are providing our people and industry with access to information that supports an informed individual choice, noting that this national vote will remain a matter for each Australian to decide themselves. We understand and respect that stakeholders including our members and employees will hold different views on the Voice for a wide range of reasons.”

The Regional Institute of Australia, which examines housing as part of its advocacy work, stated its support of instituting the Voice to Parliament earlier in the year.

When reached for comment, the Urban Taskforce, which represents Australia’s property developers and equity financiers, declined to comment but stated that “the consistent failure to achieve progress on the ‘Closing the Gap’ indicators show that governments have let down First Nations people”, adding that the current housing challenges in the country are having a “disproportionate impact on First Nations people”.

Speaking in a purely personal capacity, high-profile real estate industry figure Sadhana Smiles did not advocate for people to vote either way, but she shared that she was voting “yes”.

“This is my personal opinion, and it is not a reflection of any business that I am currently associated with,” she noted.

“For years now there have been decisions and policies made for our Indigenous population and not with them. They have been underrepresented in government for far too long and we cannot depend on an elected First Nations person to be the constant representative. The Voice is the opportunity to change this,” Ms Smiles said.

“If we are able to integrate Indigenous perspectives into policymaking, won’t it lead to more effective and culturally sensitive solutions? Won’t it also help close the gap on significant disparities?”

Acknowledging that there are many different viewpoints in the conversation, she urges everyone to properly inform themselves before heading to the polls.

“Everybody is entitled to their opinion. There is no right or wrong in my view, but make sure whatever you choose your opinion to be, it is a well researched and defined opinion through multiple sources rather than one.”