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

I move:

That the Tax Assessment (Build to Rent Developments) Determination 2024, made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, be disallowed [F2024L01729].

The point of this contribution is that the country is living through probably its greatest housing crisis since the end of the Second World War, and what we have seen—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you should be ashamed of yourself for facilitating that!

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

I take the interjection. What we have seen is a failure of this government, and then we see a moronic repetition of slogans, as if all these things that they've announced are going to solve the nation's housing crisis. In fact, you can have your own slogans in politics. One of the reasons that people don't think very highly of politicians is they utter too many slogans and they're often prone to offering empty words. If you watched the debate this afternoon, you'd probably find politicians in this chamber actually reading their speeches because they're not really sure what they're supposed to be saying—but I look forward to seeing that.

The main point is that the government has failed on housing. That is not in question, and whilst you can have your own slogans you can't have your own facts. The facts are that we have never had a bigger population than we have right now in Australia. We've had a massive surge in population, the biggest surge since the 1950s, and we've had a massive collapse in completions. The biggest population we've ever had simultaneously comes with the biggest collapse in housing construction in decades.

The government says it's done a great job on housing, but the scoreboard shows that under the last coalition government we saw on average 200,000 houses a year built across Australia. Under this government, we're down to 170,000 houses a year on average. We've gone from on average 200,000 houses a year to on average 170,000 houses a year. Despite all the bluster about housing, Labor's bureaucracies have resulted in fewer houses being built than were built under the former government. The housing minister is fond of saying that the government has spent $43 billion. Well, big deal! They've spent $43 billion to build fewer houses than were built under the last coalition government. That is the position that Australia finds itself in. That is why the housing squeeze is so severe, because when you have a bigger population you need to find more houses, and when you've had a housing construction collapse you've got a big problem.

All you need to do is look at the government's own program, the Housing Australia Future Fund, which would be one of the greatest failures of public administration in my lifetime. It has had two years of operation now. It has $10 billion in its budget, and it has built, we think, zero or 17 or 2,000 houses. We don't know the actual answer because, according to the Centre for Public Integrity, this is the most secretive government since the Keating government. This government has gone out of its way to block access to information. We actually have no idea how many houses have been built by this Housing Australia Future Fund because the government has covered it all up. This is the most secretive government since the Keating government, according to the Centre for Public Integrity. What a disgraceful record for a government that campaigned on transparency and integrity; hypocrisy is thy name! The government's flagship program has built either zero, 17 or 2,000 houses in two years.

Then you have the broader failure to encourage the builders, tradespeople and developers to get the housing sector moving. We see there the failure of the Housing Accord. They're supposed to build 1.2 million houses, but they'll be lucky to get to a million. The starting point is a massive failure of supply, and that is why people are battling. If you build fewer houses, you create problems all the way down the chain. That is why Homelessness Australia says that homelessness has never been worse than it is right now under this government. Homelessness is a disaster right now under this government, despite all the bluster.

You've got to think to yourself: 'If I look at all their social media and all the speeches that the housing minister gives and all the press releases, you'd think that the housing problem has been solved. She keeps on talking about the $43 billion.' Yeah, that's right—43 billion bucks for fewer houses and more homelessness. What a shocking record! What a shocking record for a government that says it's committed to housing. That's the supply side.

Then we get to the demand side. We saw this week that the government proposed to expand the Home Guarantee Scheme, which it will be able to do without any parliamentary oversight. Again, this is the most secretive government since the Keating government. They'll make this change to the Home Guarantee Scheme. There's likely to be a $62 billion contingent liability in the budget, but, when you're already running 10 years of deficits, who cares! It's all just Monopoly money to Mr Chalmers.

The expansion of the Home Guarantee Scheme takes it from a scheme which was designed to be about lower-income people getting access to their first home when they have no or a low deposit—that's the idea. The Home Guarantee Scheme was not about paying or servicing a mortgage; it was about helping people who had no deposit or a low deposit. It has gone from a lower-income targeted scheme to a scheme that any Australian can use, including the wealthiest Australians. As I say, when you're running ten years of deficits maybe you don't give a rats about a few bucks here and there, but I would have thought that a $62 billion contingent liability would be material. The consequence of that is that the average worker potentially has to subsidise the children of billionaires accessing a government program.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've said that so many times today, and it is absolutely rubbish!

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

I take the interjection. We believe in the idea that government programs should target the people that need it. We do not believe that programs funded by hardworking taxpayers, when you've got a massive burden on the working Australian, maybe the highest we've ever had—this comes from a government that reintroduced a 37c tax bracket in the last parliament. You've got to be very careful with how you spend people's money. I would say that subsidising the children of billionaires is not a good priority.

On priorities: of all the things for this government to do on housing, they chose something put forward by their mates at the big super funds and the big investors: 'I know! Let's give a tax cut to foreign fund managers so they can build and own houses in perpetuity that Australians will never own. We will dress it up as a build-to-rent measure.' In reality, it is cutting the withholding tax rate for foreign asset managers. What a warped and bizarre priority. When we did the inquiry into this bill, we asked the home-building association, the people who actually build houses in Australia, or used to build houses, where this priority would sit. Do you know what they said? 'It wouldn't be in our top 20.' The home-building association say that it would not be in their top 20. There you go.

This issue, a tax cut for Labor's big-end-of-town mates, has become the priority for the government. They now want to have a system where Australians never, ever own a house. Anyone who went to the economic summit last week with Mr Chalmers would have found that, in fact, a lot of the time was taken up by the big super funds trying to get the government to find dodgy ways for them to own and build more and more houses. Their Australian dream is for super funds to own your house, not for you to own your house.

That's the reality of this government. They believe that institutional investors should own houses. They don't give a rats that there are cities like Atlanta and cities in other parts of the US where 25 or 30 per cent of the houses are owned by institutional investors. That's what they want for Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. They want Cbus, BlackRock and AustralianSuper to own the houses in Australia. That is the Labor dream. The party of organised capital now wants to impose this disgusting idea on the Australian people. In fact, they've never liked the idea of individual Australians owning their own houses. If you go back into the annals of time, you'll find Labor ministers in the postwar period talking about not wanting to have Australians owning their own houses, because we don't want them to be little capitalists. That is the history of the Labor movement. Frankly, this is just more of the same.

We hear from ASFA, the super association, saying—

Government senators interjecting—

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators, interjections are always disorderly. I would ask senators to be mindful of that, particularly given we are so close to a maiden speech and we have an audience. We should all be on our best behaviour. Senator Ayres?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will, of course, absolutely respect your warning. We were provoked by Senator Bragg naming an association that does not exist. He just made it up!

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not in order under the standing orders. Senator Bragg, I'm giving you the call to continue with your contribution on the motion.

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

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. I thank Senator Ayres for his many, many interjections. I've noticed that he likes interjecting when I'm speaking. The Housing Industry Association does a lot of very good home building, I think you'll find. I encourage you to go to their website. You might find some facts about home building.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair, Senator Bragg.

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

I encourage the government to get better at understanding what builders, tradies and developers actually need to build the houses Australians want to live in. I have to say that Canberra based bureaucracies like the Housing Australia Future Fund that have been going for two years and that have spent $10 billion to build 17 houses haven't been very successful. So I take the interjection. I thank Senator Ayres for his many interjections.

I make the point here that I asked the super fund association, when they were giving evidence on this particular bill:

Do you think the Australian people want to rent their house from a super fund?

And the official said:

I think that they would be very happy with institutionally owned residential property …

I think that they're wrong. I think that is culturally jarring and that most Australians actually want to own their own house. Most Australians want to own their own house; they don't want to live in a house that is owned by a super fund. It shows you the institutional impact of the labour movement today. It is so obsessed with helping the super funds and the unions clip the ticket and become perpetual landlords that it now prioritises a policy of build to rent over the interests of Australian workers. That is effectively the basis for this disallowance. This is a warped priority. It will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

Of course, the cost that the labour movement doesn't want to talk about is the 30 per cent taxes the CFMEU impose onto all the new apartment builds in Australia. In fact, we saw that one of the first acts of this government, when it won the election in 2022, was to abolish the Building and Construction Commission. I think it's telling.

I've often said this is a government for vested interests, Senator Ayres. Senator Ayres, you are the king of vested interests and shovelling money and policy to your mates. The reality is that the first order of business for this government was to abolish the Building and Construction Commission. No-one thinks that was a good idea other than the Labor Party and its mates. It has imposed a 30 per cent tax on all new apartment builds for younger Australians. So, for many younger Australians, their first house is likely to be a small apartment. Imposing that cost on younger people seems very unfair to me, but, again, Labor really only care about their vested interests because they are, at heart, a government for vested interests.

The general point here is that we believe this is an important disallowance, because this is a warped priority that only a government for vested interests could conjure up. This is not in the interests of the Australian people. Because we want to have a country where individual Australians can own their own houses, we don't think that it's a good idea for big super funds and foreign owned asset managers to own Australian houses.

Honourable senators interjecting—

No, we don't. I take all the interjections. It must be a very sore point, but we don't believe that foreign asset managers and big super funds should be the perpetual owners of Australian housing. I'm sorry that the government is embarrassed, but we don't think this is the right priority. So we're moving this disallowance because we want to see Australians back in the vanguard of housing policy. We accept the election result, and we understand that the government have another couple of years to try and get it right on housing. We want to help the government be the best that they can be. The way that will be measured will be on the supply numbers. If you can build more houses that Australians can live in, then that's a good thing, but you've got to get the priorities right.

We encourage the Senate to consider carefully whether it's a good idea for the Australian taxpayer to be giving away money to foreign asset managers so they can own houses in perpetuity that Australians will never, ever own. Think very carefully about where we are heading in this country. There is a massive conspiracy between Mr Chalmers, the unions and the big super funds to become perpetual landlords, and it's not a good idea. The caterwauling and the crying from the Labor Party on the government benches really is a testament to their great embarrassment that this is finally going to be exposed.

We encourage the Senate to vote for this disallowance. More broadly, we want to see the government get serious on the supply side. Their measures so far been disasters. They've had three years; they've gone backwards. They've got another 2½ years or so, and we want to see the government get to the 250,000 houses that are required for Australia to hit its targets. While they're doing that, we want to see them be serious about the demand side.

Is it really a good idea for the government to be delivering a program which is now open to the wealthiest Australians to get access to government insurance scheme? We would say it's best to means test things. Taxpayer dollars should be treated very carefully, and giving away money to the wealthiest Australians when they don't need that money is really not appropriate. I encourage the Senate to consider this motion carefully once we get through the formalities of this next speech.

Debate interrupted.