Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make some comments about the nation's housing nightmare and to give a preview as to why the coalition is not of the view that prioritising build-to-rent developments is appropriate in any way. We have a massive failure on housing which starts from the basis that the government has presided over the largest growth in population since the 1950s, but, at the same time, has presided over a collapse in housing completions. We've gone from an average of 200,000 houses a year under the previous coalition government, and now we're down to 170,000 new houses each year, despite having the largest growth in employment since the 1950s.

Then we have a massive growth of regulation, with 5,000 new regulations in the last parliament enacted by this government. Now we see the Minister for Housing, Clare O'Neil, the productivity minister and the Treasurer talk about this thicket of regulations. They talk about a thicket. It's a very interesting word, 'thicket'. That thicket was put in place by this government. In three years, it put in place 5,000 new regulations, including 1½ thousand new regulations in the Treasury and Infrastructure portfolios, where housing policy resides.

Then we have the CFMEU given a green light to get back in business, to get back on track, perhaps. They were given a green light over the weekend to do their worst in New South Wales, and we'll see the CFMEU flags flying atop new apartment builds in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Every time you see a CFMEU flag, you should be thinking to yourself, 'This is a 30 per cent tax on young people.' Young people will pay 30 per cent extra for the mafia and thuggery and corruption of the Labor Party's CFMEU.

Then we have perhaps the saddest stats of all to be recited in these chambers this week in Canberra, in relation to homelessness. I quote the ABC:

The number of people accessing homelessness services each month has increased by 10 per cent since Labor was elected in May 2022.

This has been a disaster. Beyond the boondoggle of the Housing Australia Future Fund, we have more homeless people than ever before and we are at a decade low in housing completions, despite having the biggest population we've ever had.

But what is the priority of this wonderful Labor government? Its priority is to give a big, fat tax cut to foreign asset managers so they can come and build houses in Australia—homes that Australians will never own. Australians will never own these houses. These are only to be owned by foreign asset managers from any country. They could even be sovereign wealth funds. So that's the starting point. We don't think it's a good idea to prioritise build-to-rent. We actually have no problem with the market deciding, 'We want to build an apartment building, we're going to have build-to-rent and we're going to do that.' We love the market. We think that's a good idea. Fine, you can do that. But we don't think it needs a tax cut.

The problem the Australian people have, having had this government for over three years now, is that the government is completely captured by vested interests that they are personally and financially close to. They think, because they've been told so by their mates in the unions, the big super funds and the property industry, that it's a really good idea to give foreign fund managers a tax cut so they can build houses people will never own. Do you know why it's a good idea for them? Because they're going to collect the lower taxation and then all the revenue from leasing houses to Australians. Of course, the poor old Australians become serfs to these people, to these corporates—foreign fund managers, sovereign wealth funds, whatever. So this is their priority. After presiding over the greatest housing calamity in Australian history, they want to do this—a tax cut for build-to-rent developments.

The superannuation industry is of course one of my favourite groups of people, and, when they were at the Senate inquiry, I asked them whether it was a good idea for the super funds or big institutions to own houses. I said, 'Do you think the Australian people want to rent their houses from a super fund?' And the super fund executive from the association said, 'I think they'd be very happy with institutionally owned residential property.' Well, I think that they are wrong. I don't think it's what most Australians want. I think Australians want to own their own houses. That's what they want. They don't want this American model. They do not want to see the Americanisation of Australian housing. If you're wondering what I'm talking about, in cities like Atlanta, Charlottesville and Jacksonville, institutional investors own 25, 18 and 21 per cent of the houses. That's the Americanisation of Australian housing that the Labor Party want to bring to this great country. That's what they want. That's their agenda—houses owned by big super funds and all their mates at the unions.

So it doesn't need a tax cut. If you want to have build-to-rent, fine, but it doesn't need a tax cut. In fact, Cameron Murray, who's a very interesting economist, told the Senate that you've got the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, which owns the Smith Collective on the Gold Coast, which is 1,251 build-to-rent dwellings. Okay. And he says that it's bizarre that the government wants to prioritise and give foreigners a tax cut when they're already doing it here. So we're trying to make it even easier for them. It's crazy. Build-to-rent, across the board, in Melbourne's Kensington, in Sydney's Zetland—there are dozens of developments across the country where this is already happening. So I think it's a big problem, and the property industry itself has said of the legislation brought to you by the Labor Party that it's probably not going to work anyway.

So that's why we're moving—in the next sittings, I expect now—to disallow these regulations, because we need to have an honest conversation with the Australian people about rectifying this situation. It is clear that the only way out of the housing calamity is to build more houses. If people want to build build-to-rent, fine, but it doesn't require a tax cut. But, more broadly, the tradespeople, the builders and the developers—the people involved in home building—will tell you that the supply side needs support from the Commonwealth, and that's what we should be having a debate about, as well as sensible ways to help tilt the scales for first home buyers.

But we're not of the view that the government should be allowed to be a government for vested interests. Our job is to scrutinise this government. That's what the Australian people would expect. I think the reason this build-to-rent tax concession was held up for a long time in the last parliament was that a lot of others also shared the concern that this is a very unusual priority. It would be an unusual priority to most Australians. When you have a close look at this government and you understand that this is a pattern of its behaviour and that it is very dedicated to specific vested interests, then perhaps it is not surprising, but it is not the right priority. And the message it sends is very culturally jarring, because it's saying that individual Australians are no longer the focus: 'we've given up on you owning your own house, and the only solutions we have left are where someone else owns your house or you co-own the house with the government.' And don't take my word for it. You can take the ABC's data, reported on the ABC, on how bad the situation is. A government that has blown so much hot air on housing and built so much bureaucracy is presiding over not only a massive collapse in construction but also the worst homelessness crisis in history. What more data do you want to see?

So I'm surprised that someone of the calibre of the minister hasn't been prepared to look at the housing policies that were inherited from the Prime Minister and come to the realisation that this is not working, so the government needs to course-correct. We will help them do that; but we will also be moving to disallow this very bad law.