Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

In relation to the amendment moved by the member, firstly, I thank the member for her prior notice in relation to the amendment and the constructive discussions we had. We won't be supporting the amendment because, although it's well intentioned and we completely understand that the Help to Buy Bill 2023 is a hollow bill with very little detail—the bill is here 20 months after the election and more than 12 months after this scheme should have commenced, on 1 January 2023. You'd expect there to be detail in the bill. I absolutely understand where the member is coming from, but, ultimately, this scheme cannot be recovered through any amendments, and therefore we won't be supporting it.

What we've witnessed in this debate is quite instructive of the concerns that many in the House quite rightly have about this scheme. Firstly, we saw the government pull their speakers on the bill. We can understand that the backbenchers in the government wouldn't have been particularly enthusiastic in speaking about a program that has received the sort of feedback that it has—the absolute inadequacy of the program. We saw the backbenchers being pulled from the speaking list. Now we have the debate being guillotined, which shows how ashamed the government is of this proposal.

We saw a correlation when coalition members started speaking about the fact that shared-equity schemes exist in a number of jurisdictions in this country already, be it New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia or Tasmania. I think we saw the government backbenchers being pulled off the list when they started speaking about the fact that 94 per cent of places in the New South Wales shared-equity scheme remain available. So we have a situation now, in the middle of a housing crisis, where the government is fiddling with a policy that has already been rejected by Australians throughout this country. Why? Because they don't want the Prime Minister sitting at their kitchen table. They don't want the scrutiny associated with it. They certainly haven't got answers from this government. So we can understand why the member is moving these amendments seeking more oversight over the minister because of these basic questions that cannot be answered.

The purchase of a home is the biggest single investment most people will make in their lives, and they need certainty when they make those investments. We have a situation where a thought bubble from the Prime Minister before the election has taken 20 months to arrive in this House. You would expect if somebody brought their homework 20 months late it would be an A+ effort. What has been brought to the chamber is a bill with scant detail and the concerns that most Australians would have not answered. For example, as speaker after speaker in this House has outlined, the government is going to own 40 per cent of your home and they are going to take 40 per cent, therefore, when you sell, but are they responsible for the repairs and maintenance throughout the life of that property? If you have a leaky roof and you have to go and spend a few thousand dollars to fix it, will you send an invoice off to the government for them to reimburse you for their 40 per cent or do you wear that cost even though at the end the government are going to take their 40 per cent and the growth in the scheme, thank you very much. These very basic questions need to be answered.

For example, has the government modelled under the income caps in place, a combined income of $120,000 or a single income of $90,000, how many suburbs in Sydney in which you can buy a home with an income of $90,000? That would be interesting answer. Has the government modelled that? The government says, 'We have set aside $5.5 billion for 10,000 places,' and yet there are shared-equity places available in every single territory that's currently got a shared-equity scheme. As I was saying to the member for Wentworth, it's like walking into a shop absolutely full of a certain product it can't sell and then the manager says, 'Bring another pallet in here of this product Australians don't want.' That's not the answer to the housing crisis. We want a serious response from this government. This is not a serious response. We understand the reservations, but we won't be supporting— (Time expired)

See this speech in context