Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 24, page 16 (line 14), omit "Note 1", substitute "Note".

(2) Clause 24, page 16 (lines 17 to 19), omit the note.

(3) Clause 24, page 16 (after line 27), at the end of the clause, add:

(5) Despite regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 44(2)(b) of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 of that Act (about disallowance) applies in relation to a direction given under subsection (1) of this section.

Prior to the last election the Parliamentary Budget Office reviewed the Help to Buy policy. It estimated the scheme would involve equity contributions from the taxpayer of up to $22 billion over the medium term. While I support the intent of the scheme, I'm deeply uncomfortable providing any minister with this amount of public money with so little in the way of oversight and accountability.

If you look at the Help to Buy Bill 2023 you will not find any rules about who is eligible for the scheme, the number or value of the mortgages it will underwrite or how different jurisdictions will be treated. None of this is contained in the bill. Instead it is all within the power of the minister to determine by regulation, which is not subject to disallowance. Similarly, when it comes to the scheme's public reporting about how many Australians will benefit, how much support they're receiving and where those benefits are going, this is left out of the bill and put entirely in the minister's hands. In other words, the public will only know what the minister wants us to know about the scheme.

There are some restrictions on the minister's power. The minister must consult with the states on some matters. The minister may not intervene to support a specific borrower or property. The minister must undertake a review of the scheme after three years. For someone who believes in public integrity, I find the lack of restrictions deeply concerning, especially when we're talking about billions of dollars of public money. I'm not making any claims about the current minister, but this scheme will run for years, potentially decades, and ministers will come and go. We ought to legislate the integrity of the scheme right from the beginning.

My amendment would simply make the minister's directions a disallowable instrument. It will give the parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the minister's decisions about eligibility and reporting. Where the minister has tried to make directions that fall short of the community's expectations, parliament will have the power to veto those decisions. The minister's office have said that they do not support this amendment because the scheme needs certainty and because it would delay the commencement of the scheme. I appreciate the need for certainty with a scheme that involves our state and territory governments and a number of private lenders, but a disallowance only needs to stand for 15 sitting days before the directions become permanent and participants have complete certainty. Certainty is only created when there is some possibility of disallowance when the minister's directions are at odds with what the parliament is willing to support. If the parliament does not support what the minister intends to do or how she intends to use billions of dollars of public money, it is appropriate that that investment or expenditure does not proceed.

Letting this bill go through without adequate checks and balances is a dangerous precedent to set for future governments. I strongly support action to help people get into homeownership and I believe a shared-equity scheme is one of the right ways to go about it. But I was elected on a platform of integrity, as were so many of us here today, and integrity means that we cannot give a minister a blank cheque without adequate oversight or accountability, even if we support the underlying policy.

I commend my amendments to the House.

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

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister, for your comments. I think my question really goes to the heart of this, which is in our discussions in your office we were told that you have those concerns but you're wanting certainty. My argument is that it's only 15 days that I'm asking for for disallowability. That could give people the certainty. It's not a long period of time that it would have to be open for. I see that that would be appropriate. It would give appropriate parliamentary oversight. Just because other instruments have been passed in the past without that parliamentary oversight, I don't think that is a justification, in this case, for no longer having that oversight.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 14), before "The object", insert "(1)".

(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

(2) This includes assisting cohorts of individuals who have historically experienced disadvantage or exclusion when attempting to buy homes.

Note: An example of such a cohort is single women who are at or near retirement age.

(3) Clause 45, page 33 (after line 22), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the extent that the operation of the Help to Buy program has assisted the cohorts of individuals referred to in subsection 3(2) to buy homes.

Note: Subsection 3(2) refers to cohorts of individuals who have historically experienced disadvantage or exclusion when attempting to buy homes.

I appreciate the consideration the minister has given me in discussing this amendment. I and other crossbenchers have expressed our concerns that, apart from a general comment in the explanatory memorandum for this legislation about the increasing struggle that low- and middle-income earners confront in trying to own their own home, the bill itself is devoid of any mention of who exactly the government hopes will benefit.

At the last election I campaigned specifically, and have since, to improve women's equality and equity, and housing is just one of the areas where women are notably disadvantaged. ABS data shows that today just 55 per cent of the poorest 45- to 55-year-olds own their own home, down significantly from 71 per cent four decades ago. All the indications are that women are overrepresented in that cohort. The Grattan Institute, which proposed a shared-equity scheme very similar to this initiative taken by Labor to last election, says that it would be of specific benefit to women approaching retirement who would not otherwise qualify for a mortgage and would live their later years without the certainty of a roof over their heads or worse. This amendment would add a specific reference to women in the object of the legislation as well as other historically disadvantaged individuals to make sure that this program is geared to the people who most need it. It would also provide a prod to Housing Australia and those in the states and territories responsible for administering the program that they should be cognisant of historically disadvantaged groups among the low-income individuals that the legislation is designed to assist.

I understand the minister will not agree to the amendments, in large measure because of the complexity of negotiating agreements with eight state and territory governments to get the program off the ground. That said, I would ask then that reporting on the program is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed to enable us to know for sure in a timely way that it is assisting the cohorts it aims to help, especially women.

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

I think it was a very good question asked by the member for Goldstein: What is the objective of the government? Why such little detail? Not only has the question of who the government are seeking to assist here been asked on multiple occasions but a succession of other questions have gone unanswered. Again, I reiterate the point that I think people would understand, if the government was particularly swift in bringing this legislation forward shortly after the election, that there could be some holes in the bill but here we are, now 20 months into the government.

This is more than 12 months later than when it should have started and there is a succession of questions that lead one, as the member for Goldstein has, to ask: What is the objective and expectation of the government under this scheme? The questions that have been asked by this side of the chamber that have gone unanswered include the following: What is the assumed return on equity over the medium term of this measure, particularly the way it has been budgeted for? Will the income thresholds be indexed? That will obviously be on the authority of the minister. What are the instances in which the government would force a sale? What are the instances in which a government would say to a homeowner, 'We require repayment of our 40 per cent of equity'? Will that occur when that person gets a pay rise of $1 over the threshold that was an eligibility requirement to begin with? Will it be when the person potentially goes into arrears on their loan? What are the circumstances in which the government will demand its equity back?

Because if the government is going to budget for this the way it has, it must be expecting a return on its investment. In order to obtain a return on its investment, there must be circumstances in which the government will essentially foreclose on a homeowner and say, 'We want our 40 per cent back now.' Will that occur at a time when a homeowner is in negative equity? Will it be in an instance when there is a downturn in the economy? When house prices reduce, where you have negative equity, will the government foreclose in those circumstances?

In the end, the way the government is budgeting for the measure, it will get a return on its investment, a return on the $5.5 billion of equity that it is borrowing. Mind you, what are the debt costs associated with that $5½ billion? We know the government will have to draw down $5½ billion for the 10,000 places per year. What is the government bond rate it will pay on that? How many hundreds of millions of dollars in debt servicing payments will be attached to that? And that gets us to the next question: If we have seen throughout the country that these schemes are chronically undersubscribed for all the reasons we have outlined—that people don't want the government forcing them to sell their home—what has the department modelled in relation to the uptake of this product? Because, again, the scheme in New South Wales has only been able to deploy six per cent of the available places.

Even though we've got a headline of 10,000 places being available, does the government promise that every single one of those 10,000 places will be taken up? For budgetary purposes, have they modelled that every one of those places will be taken up, or does their modelling reflect that it's very unlikely that anywhere near 10,000 places will be taken up? Again, to go back to my earlier questions, we need clarity about the responsibility of the Commonwealth, as a co-owner of the property, for repairs and maintenance or for improvements. What is the experience that we've seen from state based schemes? Whilst we're in the midst of a housing crisis—first home buyers at record lows, new home starts at record lows, approvals at record lows, rents rising at 26 per cent—the priority of this government needs to be much bigger than replicating programs that already exist at a state level in this country and that are already going unused.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the consideration-in-detail amendments moved by the member for Goldstein. I think it's really important we acknowledge that there is some merit in this program. I want to say to the minister: I know that there have been people across the sector calling on the federal government for a program exactly like this for a period of time. I also want to acknowledge that I do believe there are people who will benefit from this program. I think the issue here is that, as a parliament, we have no line of sight of who those people will be, except for some very limited commentary in an explanatory memorandum committing it to be targeted specifically to low- and middle-income families.

I understand that the federal government is working in the very complicated environment that is our federated system, but I can't help but think there is something slightly off kilter. We are entering into this saying we can't decide what we're going to do until we've consulted with the states and territories, but the first step in consultation should always be in this House. As the legislation stands, we're being asked, as a parliament, to basically trust that the government will make sure this is allocated in a way which would be in keeping with our expectations. Trust is a very valuable asset. It's something that's earned, not necessarily given straightaway. At the moment, the details are just not in this piece of legislation, and this amendment would go some way to tightening those details up.

Question negatived.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together. In the past week, my fellow members and I have discussed the Help to Buy Bill widely. It is safe to say, as we've heard already, that we're all concerned by the current state of the bill. The bill was meant to bring a ray of hope to Australians dreaming of owning a home, with its name being the starting point. However, it is confusing. There are no certainties with trying to own a home in such trying times.

Good policy requires some degree of relatability to the public we seek to serve. I previously outlined in my speech on the second reading the shortcomings of the bill. We are in a housing conundrum involving supply and demand. The Help to Buy Bill only seeks to provide access to ownership. It doesn't address shortages of supply, which we all know is the critical issue, or the affordability of buying, which is out of reach for many working Australians.

A young constituent named Mario in my electorate of Fowler shared his concern that this bill is 'too vague on who it gives preference to' and that the 'applicant pool is too large relative to the number of available places'. My amendments seek to address the opaqueness of the bill by requiring that matters covered by ministerial directions under the Help to Buy program specifically include:

(b) the number of residential properties in relation to which Housing Australia may enter into Help to Buy arrangements, taking into consideration the current demand and need for housing;

Ten thousand places per year are not enough. There should also be direction as follows:

(e) the categories of individuals who will have priority under the Help to Buy Program, such as single parents, victims of domestic violence or individuals of a low socio-economic background.

This also includes those of cultural background and in regional areas. This is important as we need to ensure that individuals who are disadvantaged and vulnerable are not left at the bottom of the barrel or left behind. The amendment also includes:

(d) the amount, or amounts, that Housing Australia may contribute under Help to Buy arrangements in order to enable individuals to obtain home loans with lenders;

The current reality that we're living in is that buying a home is not an affordable feat even if the government is offering to chip in 30 to 40 per cent for a purchase price of approximately $950,000. Young constituent Mario, who is very passionate about this topic, gave me a graph of the median house prices in various suburbs of Fowler. He had deduced that the median house price was over $1 million. A significant number of my constituents do not have $90,000 or close enough to buy a million-dollar home. Even if they did earn $90,000, a local broker has shared that the individual can expect to borrow approximately $410,000. An individual's median income in Fowler is $521 per week, which they must spread thinly across raising the kids, bills, food, HECS debt and general expenses. When lenders are looking at the borrowing capacity for a home loan, as we all know, it's very challenging, but these individuals would be very lucky to get offered even $300,000, especially with the increasing interest rates. If the individual has been in credit card debt or finance vehicles, their chance of getting a sufficient loan becomes even more obscure.

My biggest concern still lies with young people being unable to obtain a loan as they have accumulated a HECS debt that is subject to indexation and rises with CPI. I've said it before and will say it again: we need to freeze indexation in order to give young people a push in life. It is concerning to me that we are not taking this seriously enough. Lenders will look at a young person's borrowing capacity together with their HECS debt and refuse to give them an adequate loan. Where is the equity there? We should try to close the gap of disadvantage and really help those in need.

In my view, Housing Australia, on behalf of the government, should do more than just give cash. Another amendment that I have proposed is that there be a statutory obligation on Housing Australia to cooperate with lenders to support an individual's eligibility for a loan and ability to obtain a loan relating to residential property. This could be in a form adjusting the contribution or a letter of support. Such help can go a long way. I therefore ask the government to consider the amendments holistically so that we can truly provide the help needed to Australians dreaming of owning a place that they can call their own home.

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

I want to commend the member for Fowler for her considered amendments. I think her amendments highlight just how little thought has been put into this scheme brought to this House. The member for Fowler's remarks echo some of mine earlier which raised the question to the government that has not been answered. That is: in a city like Sydney in the member for Fowler's electorate or in my home town of Melbourne, has the government modelled how many suburbs and how many homes within those suburbs would be available using the income caps that have been proposed here? I'm sure there'll be many in the media who do this analysis. I suspect that in the member for Fowler's home state of New South Wales there will be very few places where someone on a $90,000 income, as the member for Fowler outlined, with a HECS debt and a car loan and whatever other liabilities they may have will ever be able to avail themselves of this program.

Again, I go back to the earlier point, that is there are an abundance of shared equity places around this country and an abundance of places available to people should they want one of these products. So why on earth in the middle of a housing crisis would the government devote its energies to something where products are already available? If somebody in New South Wales wants a shared equity opportunity they'll own it with the New South Wales state government. For most people, it will make no difference to them whether they jointly own a property with the New South Wales state government or the Commonwealth government. Yet only six per cent of places in the New South Wales scheme are being taken up, so 94 per cent of the places are still available. As well as in New South Wales, there are also places still available in the shared equity schemes in South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. So in the middle of a housing crisis, what's the government's big idea? Let's create more of these places that are already going unused around the country.

Notwithstanding the very excellent questions raised by the member for Fowler, similar to the remarks I made earlier, we won't be supporting the amendments because this pitiful effort from the government can't be repaired through amendments. It's been a wonderful effort from the crossbench to try and recover this bill as much as possible and to actually put some meat on the bones, but sadly it is so far away from being a fit-for-purpose effort that we won't be supporting the amendments.

As I've said, the member for Fowler rightly raised so many concerns with this bill. We don't often have a process where something like this is brought to the parliament seemingly without any consultation having occurred. The consultation seems to be promised at some point down the track. I suspect members in this place feel quite offended that we've got a bill here—a hollow bill—at a time when the government hasn't rushed this. And I say that with some experience as a former housing minister who established the Home Guarantee Scheme on 1 January 2020. In just a bit over six months we put together an entire complex policy—the Home Guarantee Scheme—that's now supporting one in three first home buyers.

The government has continued with this very proud coalition legacy and we're pleased it has seen fit to support that program now, after criticising it earlier in its inception. I've seen firsthand and I've delivered, as a minister, a policy within six months of an election. Here we've got it 20 months later and, quite rightly, crossbenchers are asking, 'Where on earth is the detail in this bill and how on earth am I going to be able to communicate to our constituents any possible benefits to this scheme?' Notwithstanding that, we won't be supporting the amendments.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Fowler be agreed to.