The Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 amends the Housing Australia Future Fund Act 2023 to prohibit the Future Fund Board from making investments in social or affordable housing assets where the Construction and Building Unions Superannuation Fund (CBUS) has invested, or intends to invest, while the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) is under administration. The prohibition applies to investments made on or after the law commences.
This is a narrowly targeted statutory restriction tying public co-investment decisions to the industrial status of a union and to a named industry superannuation fund. For fund managers, trustees, and housing developers the change injects an external, non-financial trigger into due diligence and deal timelines; for CBUS and projects reliant on pooled capital it creates a conditional barrier to attracting capital from the Future Fund at specific times.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a prohibition into section 39 of the Housing Australia Future Fund Act 2023: the Future Fund Board must not make an investment in a social or affordable housing financial asset if CBUS has invested, or will invest, in that asset at a time when the CFMEU is under administration.
Who It Affects
It directly affects the Future Fund Board, the Construction and Building Unions Superannuation Fund (CBUS), trustees and investment managers operating under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, housing developers and project sponsors seeking Future Fund co-investment in social or affordable housing.
Why It Matters
The bill conditions public investment eligibility on the industrial/administrative status of a union and on the involvement of a specific superannuation fund, creating a new non-market criterion that could narrow the Future Fund’s deal pipeline, complicate transaction diligence, and shift the risk allocation on social housing financings.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill amends the existing Future Fund investment regime by adding a time‑based prohibition: if the CFMEU is ‘‘under administration,’’ the Future Fund Board cannot invest in a social or affordable housing financial asset in which the Construction and Building Unions Superannuation Fund (CBUS) has invested or will invest. The drafting achieves this by adding a carve-in to section 39 of the Housing Australia Future Fund Act 2023 and by defining the covered investment and the triggering ‘‘prohibited time.’'
Operationally, the prohibition turns two factual axes into gating conditions: (1) whether the asset “relates to social housing or affordable housing,” and (2) whether CBUS is a current or prospective investor in that asset. Where both are true and the CFMEU is under administration, the Future Fund must decline or defer investment at that time.
The bill imports the term ‘‘investment manager’’ from the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, so the prohibition reaches investments made through trustees and appointed managers.The measure applies to investments made on or after the law commences (the day after Royal Assent). That raises practical questions for deal teams about how to determine ‘‘will invest’’ in advance of formal commitments and how the Future Fund should verify CBUS involvement during transactional due diligence.
The statute does not set thresholds for materiality or define how much CBUS exposure triggers the bar, so any investment with CBUS participation could be caught.Finally, the bill limits the Future Fund’s discretion at particular times rather than banning all co-investment with CBUS. That structure means the prohibition is temporary and conditional on an external corporate/industrial state (the CFMEU’s administration).
It therefore creates a mechanism by which timing and union governance events can directly influence the availability of public co-investment for affordable and social housing projects.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends section 39 of the Housing Australia Future Fund Act 2023 by adding a prohibition clause labelled as subsection (5).
It prohibits Future Fund investments in financial assets that 'relate to social housing or affordable housing' if the Construction and Building Unions Superannuation Fund (CBUS) has invested, or will invest, in that asset.
The targeted superannuation fund is identified by name (CBUS) and by any alternate name it may use; the bill reaches investments made through a trustee or an investment manager under the SIS Act.
The trigger for the prohibition — the 'prohibited time' — is when the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU), or any branch/division of it, is 'under administration.', The new rules apply only to investments made on or after the Act’s commencement (the day after Royal Assent).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Subjecting section 39(1) to the new prohibition
This item inserts the phrase '(subject to subsection (5))' at the end of section 39(1). Practically, it places the existing investment powers of the Future Fund Board on a conditional footing: the Board’s ability to act under subsection (1) remains, but it must comply with the soon-to-be-introduced prohibition in subsection (5). That sequencing makes the prohibition a limiting exception rather than an independent power.
Express prohibition on making specified investments at a prohibited time
Subsection (5) tells the Future Fund Board in clear terms that it 'must not' make the investments described in subsection (6) while a 'prohibited time' exists. The use of mandatory language ('must not') creates a hard statutory bar rather than a discretionary factor, removing Board discretion for investments that meet the statutory criteria at the triggering time.
Defines the covered investments (social/affordable housing and CBUS involvement)
Subsection (6) defines which financial assets are covered: those 'relating to social housing or affordable housing' where a trustee or investment manager of a superannuation fund either 'has invested, or will invest' in the asset, and where that fund is CBUS (or its alternative name). By referencing trustees and investment managers under the SIS Act the bill captures standard superannuation participation structures, and the 'will invest' language potentially reaches planned but not yet executed commitments.
Defines 'prohibited time' as CFMEU being under administration
Subsection (7) defines 'prohibited time' as any time when the CFMEU, including any branch/division, 'is under administration.' The bill does not define 'under administration' within this Act, so its legal meaning will rely on other statutory definitions or case law; the provision ties the investment prohibition directly to an industrial/organizational status rather than to conduct or convictions.
Application clause — prospective operation
This item makes the amendments apply to the making of investments on or after commencement of the item. That ensures pre-commencement investments are not retroactively voided, but it creates a bright-line date for transaction teams to consider when assessing whether an investment will be caught by the new prohibition.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Future Fund Board and its advisers — gains a statutory rule that can be used to avoid co-investing with a named industry superannuation fund during union administration events, which could reduce perceived reputational or political risk.
- Parties opposed to union-affiliated investment influence — they obtain an explicit legal mechanism to prevent public co-investment with a fund associated with a union during times of administration.
- Competitor investors and private capital providers — where the Future Fund is blocked from co-investing, private investors may secure larger ownership stakes or better terms on social housing projects.
Who Bears the Cost
- Construction and Building Unions Superannuation Fund (CBUS) — stands to lose access to Future Fund co-investment for any qualifying social or affordable housing assets while the CFMEU is under administration, which could affect deal economics.
- Social and affordable housing projects and developers — may face reduced access to public co-investment and longer capital-raising timelines if CBUS participation would otherwise have unlocked Future Fund capital.
- Future Fund (and ultimately taxpayers) — narrowing the eligible investment universe at certain times could force the Board into suboptimal timing or asset selection, potentially affecting portfolio returns or delaying housing investment goals.
- Transaction advisers and trustees — must add an extra compliance step to verify union administration status and CBUS involvement, increasing due-diligence costs and creating timing risk for sign-and-close schedules.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between using a non-financial, politically salient criterion to distance public capital from union‑linked funds and preserving the Future Fund’s statutory obligation to invest prudently in projects that deliver housing outcomes and returns; the bill protects against perceived association risks at the cost of narrowing deal options and introducing legal and operational uncertainty.
The bill creates several implementation and legal ambiguities. First, it does not define what it means for a financial asset to 'relate to social housing or affordable housing' or set materiality thresholds; without guidance, any asset with a tenuous connection to affordable housing could be caught, producing over- or under-inclusion.
Second, the 'has invested, or will invest' formulation is open-ended: 'will invest' could be interpreted to include expressions of interest, indicative allocations, or mere plans, which complicates pre-closing certainty and could chill negotiations where CBUS is considering participation.
Third, the statute turns the CFMEU’s governance status — 'under administration' — into a gating condition but leaves the legal meaning and proof standards unspecified. Is the reference limited to formal external administration under insolvency law, or does it encompass administrative actions under industrial regulators or union-specific statutes?
That uncertainty creates litigation risk and administrative burden for the Future Fund when verifying the trigger. Finally, linking investment policy to an industrial actor’s status invites strategic behavior: parties could seek to influence or accelerate administration outcomes to lock in or block public co-investment, and the Future Fund may be exposed to claims that the prohibition conflicts with its statutory investment duties if the restriction forces economically inferior investment choices.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.