Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Housing is one of the great challenges facing our country. It is a challenge I hear about every week in Holt. I hear it from young people who are working hard and saving carefully but still feel the dream of owning a home is moving further away. I hear it from families who want security, stability and a place to put down their roots. And I hear it from parents who worry their children may not have the same opportunities they had. A generation ago, buying a home was not easy. It took time, sacrifice and careful saving. But for many Australians it felt possible. Today too many people are doing everything right and still cannot get into the market. That is why this government is acting.

The long-term answer is clear: we have to build more homes. More homes mean more choice, more affordability and more Australians getting the chance to live near work, family, school and community. But housing does not get built by words alone. It needs roads. It needs water. It needs drainage, utilities and local infrastructure. It needs the practical work that turns land into liveable communities. That is why the Albanese Labor government is investing a further $2 billion through the Local Infrastructure Fund. This funding will help deliver the pipes, pavements and powerlines needed to unlock new housing projects. It is about unlocking the last-mile infrastructure that can hold back housing projects that are otherwise ready to go. This investment will support up to 65,000 new homes over the next decade. It is practical, it is targeted and it is exactly the kind of work that growing communities like Holt need.

This investment is part of our broader $47 billion Homes for Australia plan. We are making it easier to buy and better to rent, and we are building more homes. We have expanded the five per cent deposit scheme to all first home buyers. In Holt, around 2,747 people have bought their first home because of this scheme. Those 2,747 are families, couples and young Australians who have been able to get into the market sooner. This is what good governments should do—back people who are working hard and help them get ahead. We are also rolling out Help to Buy, supporting 10,000 low- and middle-income Australians into homeownership each year. We are delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes across the country.

But we also have to confront the parts of the system that have made it harder for first home buyers. For too long, the tax system has given investors an advantage over young Australians trying to buy their first home. It should not be easier for someone to buy their fifth property than it is for a nurse, a teacher, a tradie or a young family to buy their first. That is why we are levelling the playing field through capital gains tax and negative gearing changes. This is not about attacking aspiration; it is about backing the aspiration of working people. It is about saying the dream of homeownership should not be reserved for those who already own property.

And that is the difference between this government and those opposite. They had nearly a decade in government to act on housing, and they failed. They invested just $123 million in housing-enabling infrastructure. They said no to the Housing Australia Future Fund. They said no to Help to Buy. They said no to Build to Rent. They said no to Labor's five per cent deposit scheme. In government they even said no to having a housing minister. Now they are saying no to giving first home buyers a fairer chance. Their record is clear: when it comes to housing, they do not build; they block.

I want to thank the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Cities, the Hon. Clare O'Neil MP, for her work and leadership in driving this housing agenda.

Nicolette Boele (Bradfield, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the government's efforts to make housing more affordable, but I stress that far more needs to be done to address our housing crisis. Let's look at one important piece of the puzzle for affordable housing. The government aims to deliver 55,000 social and affordable homes, and I welcome that. But this commitment doesn't mean anything if those homes aren't actually affordable for the people who need them. The question here is the meaning of 'affordable', because at the moment governments can't seem to agree. Let's run through some of the inconsistent definitions that we're dealing with today.

To the Housing Australia Future Fund, the federal government's main housing investment body, 'affordable' means 74.9 per cent or less of market rent. To the Department of Social Services, 'affordable' means 75 to 80 per cent of market rent. To the New South Wales government, it means less than 30 per cent of gross income, and, to the Willoughby City Council, it means up to 30 per cent of a household's income for very low to moderate income households. It's a mess, and this mess has real-world impacts.

Take the '30 per cent of gross income' definition. For most young people in my electorate—young people working in nursing, teaching, hospitality and retail—there just isn't anything available to rent for 30 per cent of your income. They end up paying more like 50 per cent, and they can't sustain that. So they move away—away from their families, their workplaces and the places that they love. The 20 to 25 per cent discount on market rent isn't necessarily any better either in an electorate with such high market rents.

This patchwork system simply isn't working. That's why I'm running a campaign to establish a nationally consistent definition of 'affordable housing'.

The first step is to craft the best definition we can. I'm consulting with experts on this subject right now, and we'll have something to report very soon.

The next step is to get governments to cooperate. Now, that's a tricky part at the best of times, let alone on an issue as vexed as housing. But it's essential that we find a way to work together. The federal government has a unique position to lead on this, because of the leverage it wields through the GST, through the National Housing Accord and through programs like the special investment vehicle, the Housing Australia Future Fund. I'm also convening a roundtable in parliament in August, bringing together industry, parliamentarians, civil society organisations and academics, to drive the conversation on affordable housing and push us closer to real solutions.

This is complicated, and it's difficult work, but, with your support, we can make it happen. Already, over 5,000 people have signed on to this campaign. So please join us. My goal is to ensure that, when governments talk about funding affordable homes, we actually understand what they're talking about and intend to deliver, and we can hold them to account.

But, of course, there is more to the housing crisis, as the member for Adelaide's motion points to. Boosting housing supply isn't just about building houses; it's about building the infrastructure that underpins those houses. It's the roads, the cycle paths and the footpaths; it's the water and sewerage infrastructure; it's the electricity connections and public transport stops; it's open spaces, recreational facilities and cultural centres—all the things you need to make new housing development places that people can actually live. In the budget, the government announced $2 billion for these infrastructure improvements. I welcome this, and I want to see it flowing into housing developments that build genuinely affordable housing supply where it is needed most.

Between the two LGAs that make up my federal electorate, we're working hard to deliver 11,000 new homes, slated for development over the next three years. I want to see a fair share of this $2 billion directed to Ku-ring-gai Council and Willoughby City Council to support that effort. These councils are already pulling their weight in building more housing supply, and they need assistance from the federal government to do this. I've already met with the minister to discuss this funding, and I'll keep pushing until we see that the funding that my electorate deserves and needs goes there, so that we have liveable places that people can call home, no matter what stage of their life they are in.

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion from the member for Adelaide, and, in doing so, I reflect on something which I remember coming across many years ago, which is that, when we think about the Whitlam government, we think about this reforming government and the 'crash through or crash' style of Gough Whitlam. But one of the central election commitments that the Labor Party made in the 1972 election was to put sewerage in Western Sydney—hardly radical; hardly 'crash through or crash'. Something as practical as putting sewerage into the western suburbs of Sydney opened that community up to decades of prosperity.

So it is with the Albanese government's commitment of $2 billion in this budget, building on $6-plus billion to unlock that sort of infrastructure, which is just basic and fundamental to developing our outer suburbs for housing. I think, back in 2024, the Albanese government committed something like $40 million to unlock, effectively, 500 dwellings in Meadowbrook, a suburb that I represent, in Logan, and it was able to reduce the time needed for approvals from 12 months to 12 weeks.

When you see that sort of multiplier impact that a small investment can have across the whole economy, it really does show, I think, the fundamental philosophy of this Albanese government, which is about rejecting 'business as usual'. I think that we have seen, as the housing minister says, that the housing crisis that we have today is something that is 40 years in the making. It was effectively neglected, particularly over the previous 10 years, where you had something like $130 million going into development of infrastructure under the previous government, which is something like 50 times less than what this government is spending.

Something else they neglected was public housing. It's disappointing that the modern day coalition has walked away from something which they did for many years. This as a bit of a surprise to people sometimes, but in many ways my economic role model is Thomas Playford, who was a Liberal premier for decades in South Australia. I think the best example that you could show for him was that he built the suburb of Elizabeth and public housing around car plants, around Holden, in order to keep the cost of living down, keep rents down and keep the pressure off wages. That was able to attract manufacturing industries, and one of the reasons why we've lost manufacturing in this country today is that we don't have affordable housing. We see this sort of spiral of wages and rents, and it becomes unaffordable for people to live and it becomes unaffordable for companies to do business.

So providing public housing, I've long believed, is probably the most significant productivity measure that a government can take. That's why I think that is a second thing that the Albanese government needs to be commended for. As this motion says, it's delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes. In fact, in the 10 years of the previous government, they delivered something like 373 public housing dwellings over nine years. Right now in one suburb in the electorate I represent, Forde, there's 206 public housing dwellings being built as part of those 55,000 social and affordable homes.

Finally, I say that the tax system, which has been for over 20 years incentivised to treat housing as an investment and not as a family home, is something that this government is prepared to tackle. We're not just going to throw our hands up in the air and say, 'I wish we could do something about it, but we're only the government.' The third thing I'd say is that we are tackling that tax system to even it out for first home buyers at the same time that we're also supporting an increase in wages to help people get into their first homes. Accordingly, I commend the motion to the House.

Leon Rebello (McPherson, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this debate in relation to housing investment. As the opposition, it's our responsibility to hold this government to account, but what frustrates me time and time again—we've seen it just now from the member for Forde and we've seen it in the content of this motion—is it is not the responsibility of the government to spend their time talking about what's happened in the past with former governments. But all we're seeing is a government that doesn't have its own plan that it's actually able to execute. They speak about a further $2 billion of investment. It's all well and good to talk about money that's being thrown at different issues, but when Australians don't actually see the benefit and when Australians don't see the outcome, there's something seriously wrong.

I also want to use this opportunity to point out something else that we're seeing in this housing debate. There's a lot of focus from those opposite on social housing. There is a role for social housing; I'm not denying that. What I am denying are the figures that are being constantly used by members of the government in relation to how we compare homes being built now as opposed to previously, because it's one thing for government to build social housing; it's another for government to create the economic conditions to enable the private sector to do what it does best and build new properties and build new houses. What we're seeing at the moment is a government that is not making any inroads whatsoever when it comes to the removal of regulation and red tape in the housing industry, something that will actually bring down the cost and reduce the delays associated with new builds.

We're not seeing a government that's making meaningful action to build new homes quickly. We're not seeing anything from the government that is going to incentivise investment in new builds—new builds that are affordable, and I do make that distinction. The coalition, by alternative, has spoken about a $5 billion infrastructure plan. I do think that the infrastructure plan to invest in enabling infrastructure that's been spoken of is important, but it doesn't go far enough. When I speak to developers, they often say one of the biggest obstacles in producing new builds is the enabling infrastructure. It's the cost of the roads, the cost of the sewerage, the water, the powerlines—all of that. That is something the federal government can assist with, but we're not seeing any of those long-term approaches from this government.

In fact, Labor, keep in mind, promised Australians more homes at the last election, but they're already around 80,000 to 100,000 homes behind target, with no state or territory meeting their share. Despite these billions of dollars on housing programs, Australians aren't able to see the homes that are being delivered. When we were in government, under the coalition, around 200,000 homes were built each year. Under Labor we're seeing completions running around 170,000 per year. Despite around $80 billion for housing programs under Labor, fewer homes are being built than under the former coalition government. So if we're actually holding government to account and if we're actually looking at whether or not taxpayer funds are being used to create more houses and more opportunities for young people in particular to enter the housing market, they're not. That's really concerning. We've seen the Housing Australia Future Fund absolute failure, with $11.4 billion tied up but—get this—only 895 homes delivered in 2½ years. If we've seen barely any homes being built but billions of dollars committed, again, something is seriously wrong. Australians deserve delivery, not delay.

I've spoken in this place before about the National Construction Code, which has now expanded to more than 2,000 pages. This adds tens of thousands of dollars to new builds. There's no effort from this government to address that. There's no effort to rein in the regulation and speed up the progress when it comes to building new homes. It's great for the government to come in here yet again and congratulate itself on investing in certain areas. But I think when we will have a reason to congratulate this government will be the day that they come in here and announce the delivery of new houses. That is something that, from my perspective, is very far away.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Adelaide for bringing forward this motion. He understands, and the Albanese government understands, that housing is about much more than bricks and mortar; it is about security, opportunity and belonging. Owning a home—a place to raise a family, put down roots and be part of a community—has always been at the heart of the Australian dream. For many Australians, that dream represents security, independence and the opportunity to build a future for themselves and their families. That's why helping more Australians into a home of their own is such an important priority for the Albanese Labor government.

It's a priority that's delivering results for locals in my electorate of Corangamite in Victoria—locals who, last week, welcomed the Prime Minister to their new home. The Prime Minister travelled to Clifton Springs, where I introduced him to Brooklyn, Lochie and their dog, Rosco. Brooklyn and Lochie are just so overjoyed to have accessed the first home buyer five per cent deposit scheme. They told us about how they have worked hard, saved hard and, for a long time, have dreamt of building a future in the community they know and love. But, like many young Australians, they wondered whether owning a home of their own would ever be possible. Now, through the Albanese Labor government's expanded five per cent deposit scheme, they have been able to realise their dream of homeownership. Instead of paying for someone else's mortgage, they're investing in their own future. Alongside Brooklyn and Lochie, around 4,000 locals across the Geelong region have benefited from the scheme. This is what good housing policy is about—good housing policy from a reforming government. It is about giving people the opportunity to build a place, a life, that they can call home. I know just how much this matters to my electorate. Corangamite is one of the fastest-growing regions in Australia. We have families moving in to Clifton Springs, Armstrong Creek, Ocean Grove, Mount Duneed, Torquay and right across the Bellarine Peninsula because they want to be part of our community.

But, as a growing region, we also know that growth brings challenges. One of those challenges is making sure infrastructure keeps pace with the homes we need to build. Building homes is not just about putting up houses; before a family can move into a new home, there needs to be infrastructure that makes that home possible. That's why our government is rolling out the $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund. This fund will help unlock much-needed infrastructure by investing in water connections and powerlines that allow new homes to be built. It will support local governments and utility providers to deliver the projects needed to get housing moving. Importantly, it will help unlock up to 65,000 new homes over the next decade. It builds on the significant infrastructure investments the Albanese government is making on the Bellarine, the Surf Coast and across the Geelong region, with projects like the $680 million Barwon Heads Road upgrade that will be transformative to Armstrong Creek, one of the nation's fastest-growing suburbs.

These investments in infrastructure and the Local Infrastructure Fund build on our government's broader Homes for Australia plan. We are rolling out help to buy, investing in more social and affordable housing through the Housing Australia Future Fund, supporting renters and working to massively increase housing supply so that more Australians have the opportunity to have a place to call home. The previous government spent almost a decade failing to address this challenge. They opposed every measure that is now helping Australians get into homes. But the Albanese government knows the housing challenge cannot be solved by standing back, doing nothing and hoping the market fixes itself. It requires government to play its part, and that's exactly what we are doing.

In closing, the Prime Minister's visit was a great opportunity to highlight the difference these investments are making for local families today and the difference they will make for generations to come. Everyone deserves the opportunity to have a safe place to call home, and, through our Homes for Australia plan, that is exactly what we are working to deliver.

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

Housing is an important issue in my community in south-west Sydney. The government throws around big numbers—$47 billion in housing investment, $6.3 billion for infrastructure, a promise of 55,000 social and affordable homes. It sounds impressive, but my community does not live in a press release; they live in overcrowded houses, in garages turned into bedrooms and in rentals where the rent rises faster than the pay.

The government keeps promising 1.2 million new homes by the middle of 2029. But its own expert body, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, forecasts a shortfall of 262,000 homes, with no state on track to build its share. The government has already shown it cannot keep its word on housing, so why should Fowler believe this time is different?

Announcements do not lay a single brick. Homes are built by tradies, and we do not have enough of them. Yet from January this year the government halved apprenticeship support for many trades, cutting the payment to both apprentice and employer from $5,000 to $2,500. It says it's protected housing and construction apprentices—and, on paper, it has. But our building industry draws on the whole skills pipeline, and employer groups warn that these cuts will deepen the shortage. So when the government promises 55,000 homes, I ask, 'With which workforce?'

In Fowler, housing projects are already stalling under the rising cost of construction, materials and labour. The biggest cost of all is one we rarely talk about—tax. On a new house and land package in Sydney, government taxes, charges and regulatory costs now add up to around $576,000, according to the Housing Industry Association. That is close to half the price of an average new home of about $1.2 million; half the cost before a family even moves in goes to the government. If the government is serious about affordability, this is where it should start.

Working Australians are taxed when they earn, taxed when they shop, taxed when they drink, taxed when they drive and taxed on the very roof they sleep under. Then they're offered a small tax cut and told to be grateful. But a small cut does not touch the half a million dollars built into the price of a home. Real relief means lifting the burden of the homes our families are trying to build.

There is also the $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund for the roads and services new homes need. How it's shared out matters because not all councils start from the same place. Growth areas like Fowler carry some of the highest housing stress in the country. Our infrastructure is already stretched. South-west Sydney is one of the fastest-growing regions in the nation. We are not starting from zero; we are starting from behind. Households spend more than 30 per cent of their income on rent—sometimes 40 per cent. People come into my office in tears sometimes because they can't afford rent or don't have a house to live in.

This points to a deeper problem. At every election, the major parties pour funding into the seats they want to win, but governing for all Australians has to mean more than a chequebook at election time. The independent Grattan Institute examined billions in federal grants and found a clear pattern: government held and marginal seats received far more than the rest, while worthy projects elsewhere missed out. This is not one side of politics. Both major parties, federal and state, have done it for years. Fowler knows how this feels. For years it was treated as a safe seat, and a safe seat is one that gets taken for granted. Roads, schools and hospitals should be funded on need, not on how a seat is likely to vote. My community should not have to become marginal just to be heard.

I want more social and affordable housing, better infrastructure and a fair chance for young people to own a home and for families to rent securely. I will support any serious policy that gets us there, but I will not congratulate the government for a plan that does not guarantee a fair share for Fowler, does not prioritise growth areas and does not fix the workforce, cost and tax barriers holding back construction. My constituents deserve more than slogans. They deserve a housing system that works for them in their streets, in their suburbs and in their lifetime.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.