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

I rise to take note of the ministerial statement. In doing so I make the point that it appears that the Minister for Housing is declaring mission accomplished on housing. It's a bit like the aircraft carrier moment for the Prime Minister and the housing minister, where they declare that henceforth the housing problem in Australia is resolved because the government is spending $43 billion of taxpayer funds to build fewer houses than were built under the last government.

The numbers don't lie. Effectively, you've got a government that is now presiding over an economy that's only getting 170,000 houses a year on average, compared to 200,000 a year on average under the last government. They brag about $43 billion, but they're getting fewer houses. The pinch has never been harder for the Australian people, because we've got the biggest population that we've ever had, and we've got a housing construction collapse. That is why younger people are going crazy about housing.

It's getting a bit rich to read all these ministerial statements, puff pieces, media releases and social media posts from the housing minister and the Prime Minister, declaring that the housing mission is accomplished, because of course it's not accomplished, and it will not be accomplished by these policies. The ministerial statement irritatingly goes through these 55,000 social and affordable houses—none of which seem to have been built after two years of the Housing Australia Future Fund. I make the point that today in question time I asked Senator Wong, 'How many houses have been built by the Housing Australia Future Fund?' We didn't get an answer. We didn't get an answer last sitting.

This is, again, more evidence of the government treating the Senate like absolute dirt. This is the most secretive government since the Keating government, according to the Centre for Public Integrity. Only 25 per cent of OPDs are properly complied with, compared to 50 per cent under the Morrison government, which was a government where the Prime Minister was sworn into secret ministries, so it's not a very high standard. That's the starting point. The government doesn't want to provide information about this scheme. I assume it's because they're embarrassed by the scheme. The scheme's had two years. It's got 10 billion bucks in the bank, and it has built either 17 or 2,000 houses.

The fact that a senator is asking the Leader of the Government in the Senate repeatedly, 'How many houses has this scheme built, paid for by taxpayers?' and the Leader of the Government in the Senate refuses to answer the question shows the lengths to which the government is prepared to go to degrade this chamber and to degrade this democracy.

I say to the members of the crossbench and others: this is something that we need to take more seriously going forward. We have the theatrics of question time, and we have the processes which are supposed to yield us some information about the government's activities. This is part of our role as we work for the people who have elected us—to be stewards of accountability and to get information out. These are taxpayer funds. So I don't think we should accept—I don't think it is sustainable that we have this position, where we get laughed at when we ask questions about the expenditure of public money. There is no '55,000 new houses' built by the taxpayer. There may be 2,000; there may be 17. We don't know.

The other piece of note that comes up in this ministerial statement is approvals being up 30 per cent. The overall numbers are down. The numbers are 170,000 houses a year on average under this government compared to 200,000 houses a year on average under the last coalition government. The government has spent billions of dollars on bureaucracies which don't build houses, and what we see this week is more hot air.

The nationalisation of the lenders mortgage insurance market is a radical economic policy. It is a radical plan by the government, which has decided that it will take on a massive contingent liability by underwriting all the mortgages of first home buyers without any caps on places and without any income cap. They've decided to do away with any income caps; therefore, the wealthiest Australians, if they choose to use this scheme, will be subsidised by taxpaying workers, which seems bizarre to me. Government programs are very important in this country, and we live in a democracy where we value government undergirding people who need assistance and help. But the idea that the wealthiest Australians should be given government support in this form is not sustainable and not affordable. When you look at the budget—the budget is buggered. The budget is broken. You're looking at 10 years of deficits; it's a structural deficit. We've had two threadbare surpluses, which were provided via commodity prices spiking. This government will never deliver another surplus, and maybe no government will in the future under this current arrangement. The reason for that is the largesse. You've gone from 24 per cent to 27 per cent of spending to GDP, and now you're proposing to underwrite all these mortgages, including for very wealthy people. This is the sort of stuff that the taxpayer, in the long run, cannot afford. So I make the point that the $62 billion contingent liability is significant. We look forward to seeing exactly what Treasury has modelled here, because I think it's a pertinent question.

The other point that has been made in the reports produced by Nick Gruen is that there would be an increase in housing costs because of the bringing forward of demand. People who wouldn't have used this scheme but had other means will now use this scheme. They will add to the demand, and that will push up prices by up to 10 per cent. So the lower income people, who were the original beneficiaries of this scheme, will now be pushed out by people who have more income, more assets and more means to get a first home, which I think is manifestly unfair.

The Minister for Housing, Clare O'Neil, says this is a scare campaign. She has scolded, apparently, members of the insurance industry and has said that they shouldn't criticise the policy. It's not really surprising though, is it?. It's not surprising that the government that doesn't comply with orders of the Senate, is the most secretive government since the Keating government and wants to change this scheme without any parliamentary oversight, debate or review is telling the industry that may have legitimate concerns or may produce some legitimate research, 'Don't release your research.' It's not a very healthy culture, I have to say. It's not a healthy thing for a minister to be doing. We're all big people here. We make our own judgements; we explain ourselves. If you're the minister, you should be prepared to be criticised and be prepared to back in the judgements that you've made. But instead they decided that they would try and threaten industry out of releasing a report, it seems.

So the taxpayer risks are very significant. I note that Alex Sanchez, a former economic adviser to Mr Albanese, has said, 'The government is taking on so much risk on its balance sheet with housing,' pointing to the Housing Australia Future Fund and this scheme. It's a good point by Mr Sanchez, and there are many other economists, including Saul Eslake, David Koch and many others, who have pointed out the major problems of this scheme. So this is not going to solve the problem.

The problem facing the Australian people is one that I don't think the government will ever solve because they've spent three years lining the coffers and the pockets of all the rent seekers, bloodsuckers, lobbyists and people they're close to, in terms of the union movement, the super funds and all the other people they hang out with, and they've had no time to solve the problems facing the Australian people. This is another example. We saw the government use their economics summit last week to try and funnel more money to the super funds so they can own houses, which they're already supercharging through the build-to-rent scheme and the Housing Australia Future Fund, which we now see is making payments to the super funds. This is not a conspiracy; this is happening. This is part of Labor's agenda.

Because they are so focused on these bureaucratic solutions and solutions that have been put forward to them by vested interests which have their own commercial interests in mind, I don't believe the government will ever solve the real challenge, which is to get the supply side moving and to build the houses that Australians need to live in. Until that time, we're going to drift on through a period of large growth in our population and a continuing collapse in housing construction. In due course, there may be a case for targeted demand side measures. But you're not going to solve the housing crisis by opening up a targeted scheme to the children of billionaires and then exposing taxpayers to a massive liability which pushes up prices for people who, frankly, deserve better from their government.

Question agreed to.