Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) | Hansard source

I agree with those opposite that cost of living is the most important issue facing Australian families today. I agree with those opposite that, for young Australians, the most important issue that they are facing is home ownership, and whether they will be able to share in the Australian dream the same way that our parents and indeed many in this chamber were able to do. And I agree with those opposite that those who have worked hard all their lives and saved for their retirements deserve to understand that they have safety and security in retirement. But do you know the way that you preserve these things? Do you know the way that you solve these things? Do you know the way that you make it better for all Australians? You have policies that do that.

If there was a giant black hole in the centre of Australian politics at the moment, it would be the Labor Party's policy document. It is the greatest sucker of oxygen, light and basically anything worth nothing in the history of Australian politics. Those opposite have failed to provide a scintilla of policy designed to make anyone in Australia better off. All they can do is throw rocks. They can't actually build anything with those rocks. We had last year the farcical notion from those opposite of what their net zero plan would look like. As we found out within a few days, the modelling was wrong. People were complaining that they wouldn't be able to meet the targets in any case, and the whole thing fell apart like the house of cards that those opposite are.

Those opposite come in here and say, 'We have discovered an issue—cost of living—following your budget, which has billions of dollars and policies dedicated to helping hardworking Australians get through this period of inflationary pressure due to an invasion in Europe.' I am glad to hear those opposite have found one thing that they can't blame the Prime Minister for—that is, the invasion of Ukraine. They blame him for everything else. They blame him for floods, they blame him for bushfires and they blame him for the vibe.

For those opposite to say they are now suddenly concerned about housing affordability—they may have heard recently that the House Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue brought down a report called The Australian dream. No-one opposite could be bothered speaking to the tabling of that report. They issued a dissenting report disagreeing with the entire report, and all they offered was nothing. All those opposite have offered, all the shadow minister has offered, is a $10 billion social housing fund. I have no idea where that money is meant to come from, by the way. I suppose it'll come from the same hardworking families who are at the moment having to choose between whether they should visit their grandmother or whether they should stay at home because of the cost of fuel. I suppose they will be paying more tax for this $10 billion social public housing fund that they have suggested. But, of course, the thing that they won't talk to is the fact that public housing is not homeownership. Let's just be very clear, because the Labor Premier of Victoria has made it clear that it is the view of the Labor Party that young Australians don't wish to own their own home. He has put that on the record, and those opposite are yet to disagree with that proposition. Indeed, they tabled a dissenting report today disagreeing with 16 recommendations to make it easier for young Australians to own their own home.

Let's just be very clear what those opposite are actually arguing for in that report. They are arguing for more wealth inequality, because if you have high levels of homeownership you have lower levels of wealth inequality. Those on that side are in favour of wealth inequality. Let's also make it clear what they are doing. If you have high levels of homeownership, you have a lower incidence of mental health problems. They are arguing for a higher incidence of mental health problems. Then we get to childhood outcomes. If you have high levels of homeownership, as has traditionally been the case in this country, then you actually have better childhood outcomes. On that side of the House, they no longer believe in homeownership; therefore they also believe in lower childhood outcomes.

So let's just be very clear about those opposite. They come in here, having gone to their little focus groups, having identified a group of people who they tell, 'If you want to blame someone for how hard your life is and all the sorts of stuff that you want, blame the federal government.' But their policies would make those people's lives much, much worse. That is also assuming that they have any policies, and that is a giant assumption. (Time expired)

See this speech in context