Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

There were three questions put to the ministry, and the first that I'd like to make some comments on was in relation to the home guarantee. The question, I think, was addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, through the laser-like questioning of my friend Senator Bragg. I think that the concerns Senator Bragg was trying to draw out in the chamber were potentially about overcooking the market and increasing house prices, which was strongly repelled by Senator Wong. But it is a remarkable market intervention, and that takes some risks. I think we will need to reflect on this initiative. While I know it comes from a good place—trying to get young people into their homes—sometimes the best intentions can result in unintended consequences. They may well be taking down larger loans as a result of the guarantee. It also may overcook the market to some extent and push up prices. There will need to be a laser-like focus on understanding the implications of such a large market intervention.

My other concern is that there is a lot of discussion about trying to increase the supply side. In this debate, particularly in this chamber, and in the answers, we don't ever mention the environment. We all seem to be on a unity ticket about increasing the supply side, the building of more houses, but what is the implication to the environment, how are we going to build those houses, and what is going to be the lowest footprint? We have in effect an ethical dilemma.

I want to come to the answers to the other two questions in particular, which were drawing on potential taxation initiatives from the government as a result of what was unkindly called a 'talkfest' but was a roundtable. The roundtable was done in a traditional format and focused on the issues of the day—productivity and the sustainability of the economy. I just wonder and reflect whether we shouldn't be putting nature at the centre of all our decision-making. I ask why nature itself did not have a voice in that forum. Perhaps we should be thinking differently about how to structure our decision-making in these sorts of forums or even in this chamber. The environment was addressed as Senator Gallagher responded to the question, but it was almost an afterthought. I don't believe the environmental consequences of the decisions, even tax regime decisions, should not be at the forefront of any consideration or debate.

We must remember that we have the Climate Change Authority releasing a report in relation to targets very shortly, and we have a national climate risk assessment which will be released. These will drive government initiatives—and across the bureaucracy as well—to respond to our changing climate. So you can have a gathering and a discussion, but I didn't feel that it was in the context of the looming challenges for our country and our neighbours, especially in the Pacific. So, next time we have a Treasurer's roundtable, I wonder whether the dynamics should be different and whether the thinking should be a little less pedestrian.