Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to 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.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today in question time, we were subjected to some self-proclaimed 'laserlike' questioning on our housing work. I don't know about you, but I feel like the laser must have been bought from Temu, because it was pointing in the wrong direction. It was like it was meant to be pointing toward our long list of work that we've done on housing, but instead it was pointing in the direction of a scare campaign. That's how it came across. I'm going to talk to a couple of the things that might be a little bit of evidence about why I think he might have bought that laser from Temu.

On our side, we know that people are working hard, doing everything they can, and they still can't afford a place to call home. It says everything to a generation of Australians who feel left behind on housing that on our side we want you to have a home of your own with the security that that brings. Five per cent deposits help first home buyers get a home of their own sooner, slashing the amount of time required to save for a home. The scare campaign that we've seen today was talking about how this scheme will be opened up to billionaires. I don't know that billionaires would be scraping around, saving a buck on that coffee or that avocado toast to try and scrounge up a housing deposit loan. I don't know many—I don't know any billionaires! I don't know about you, but I don't think they're scrounging together, taking on those extra shifts and getting those extra savings to get a housing deposit. I reckon they're just hitting up the bank of mum and dad to probably buy the place outright.

But this is about helping people get into the housing market. We want to make sure that Australians can get into their own home. For single parents, we will continue the family home guarantee that helps them buy a home with a two per cent deposit, which is pretty great. And the five per cent deposit scheme is being delivered three months early. We're doing it on 1 October.

We on this side know that the housing crisis wasn't created overnight and won't be fixed overnight, but real progress is being made right across the country. In the first term, we took the Commonwealth from being a negligent bystander under the coalition to being the boldest and most ambitious government since the Second World War. But, let's be clear. The job isn't done. It's still too hard to build and too hard to buy in this country.

This announcement is about allowing all first homebuyers to buy their home with just a five per cent deposit, and it is really hard to cop criticism from those opposite, because I think they've given up on the idea of homeownership—or on anything to do with housing, actually. They voted against Help to Buy, they promised to abolish the scheme, they didn't support our 100,000 homes for first homebuyers, and now they're attempting to raise taxes on builders and scrap 80,000 new rentals in the process.

This criticism is coming from people who want to talk about the demand side but have stood in the way of every single supply measure that this government has brought to the chamber. It is Senator Bragg who, later today, has a motion to disallow build-to-rent—a supply measure. I don't know about you, but I feel like building more homes is kind of key to making them more affordable for Australians to buy. I feel like those two things are linked. I'm no economist, but I feel like the maths is 'mathing' for me. We know that the build-to-rent scheme will deliver 80,000 new high-quality homes just for renters, and the biggest challenge we face in this place is those opposite. We see an opportunity to get more people into their first homes; they see an opportunity to run a scare campaign.

That is exactly what Australians voted against at the last election. They see through the games those opposite are trying to play with their futures. They rejected the opposition to everything that we brought to this chamber in the last parliament. They voted for a positive future for the country—for a government and a party that actually have plans to build more homes and to get more Australians into their first homes. We'll continue to deliver for every single Australian. (Time expired)

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

One of the things that I've learnt in my six years as a senator—from having the opportunity to sit on those benches over there as well as these benches over here—is that government's not easy. And, arguably, it shouldn't be. It's a very important job: looking after the Australian people, delivering for the Australian people, taking the problems that Australian people are dealing with and coming up with solutions that address those problems in a way that is consistent with what Australians want to see. Government is not easy; in fact, sometimes it is very, very difficult.

Governments generally, but particularly in the 21st century, have some incredibly complex problems to deal with. We experienced it in the coalition when we were in government and we were faced with a pandemic in particular, which occurred during my time in the Senate. And, indeed, this Labor government also has some complex problems that it is dealing with: issues like tax reform, housing, lifting Australia's productivity. But what we saw last week which has been the subject of questions in this place today and indeed yesterday was the government's attempt to respond to those problems merely by convening roundtables and having talkfests—and I'm sure there'll be a bunch of fascinating discussion papers that come out of those conversations—instead of actually giving the Australian community what they want, which is action.

The funny thing is that, when the government invites all these people into Parliament House or whatever venue they choose to have these conversations and talkfests, I'm sure some genuinely quite good ideas are raised, but some genuinely odd ideas are also raised. This whole concept of a tax on spare bedrooms in family homes is an incredibly odd idea. I would have hoped that, in this chamber today, we might have got a little bit of clarity from the government about whether or not this is an idea that they will be pursuing, because, frankly, the idea of taxing any room in the family home when, currently, they're not subject to one is completely odd. I applaud my colleagues that have likewise said just how odd it is. That's a somewhat silly example that the government should have ruled out straightaway.

The other thing that the government should have done, coming out of those conversations last week, was actually articulate what action they're going to take to deal with these issues that Australians are facing. The Australian community is crying out for action to solve these problems, to solve issues around housing, to examine whether our tax system could be fairer, to lift productivity, because we know that all Australians will be better off if we can lift productivity, but the government's answer to these problems, like I say, is to just keep talking about them and talking about them and not actually propose any policies.

One of the benefits for the government of being on that side of the chamber—one of the benefits for any party of having the honour of calling itself the Australian government and being in a position to deliver for the Australian people—is that it is your responsibility to come up with the policies to deal with these issues. But, over the last three years, we've seen a government which talks about problems, talks about problems, talks about problems—and that's great; it's great that they've identified issues that Australians care about deeply. But the time for talking about those problems, frankly, I think, was over in the last parliament. For this new government to host another talkfest as one of the first things it does in this parliament is, I think, sadly, us just seeing more of the same—more of this talking about the problem and not actually bringing forward solutions that are going to give the Australian people what they want. So we will keep asking questions because Australians deserve to know what this government is actually planning to do to solve these problems. (Time expired)

Charlotte Walker (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've had some great questions from the opposition today, so I'll speak about quite a few of them. I'd love to start off with this 'spare room tax'. This idea did not come from the government. It has nothing to do with the government. It's not something we're considering. Maybe the opposition have run out of things to do, so they've just started coming up with these random ideas. This idea wasn't mentioned once during last week's roundtable, and the shadow Treasurer would know that. He was there for every minute. It's really dishonest of the opposition, who regularly peddle these sorts of lies on social media.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It has been a ruling in the chamber that we try not to use the word 'lie', so I would ask you to withdraw that, please.

Charlotte Walker (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. Our priorities on housing after the roundtable were very clear. Minister O'Neil has been doing some great work in this area. She announced over the weekend that we're going to take some immediate action to, first of all, cut the red tape by pausing and streamlining the National Construction Code and also speed up approvals by clearing the backlog of over 26,000 homes waiting for federal environmental approval.

The surest way to not build the homes that we need is to never try. The opposition would know a lot about that. That was the approach of our predecessors, but that is not the approach this government is taking. We know that housing is one of the defining challenges facing our economy, particularly for young people. We've set ambitious targets, and we know they're ambitious. We're working hard across multiple fronts to ensure that we're meeting them, backing in our $43 billion investment to increase housing supply and to help more first home buyers get into the market.

Housing was a big part of our Economic Reform Roundtable. There was broad consensus on some commonsense changes that will make a meaningful difference in reducing regulatory burden and boost housing supply. As a result of the roundtable, we're going to take some immediate action to cut red tape by pausing and streamlining the National Construction Code, as I've already mentioned. The investments we've made and the policy focus that we've been putting on housing are delivering results. More than 500,000 homes have been built since we were elected.

When we came to office, we had huge deficits that went as far as the eye could see and a trillion dollars of Liberal debt in a budget weighed down with waste and rorts. We have made so much progress on the economy—as in, where to start? Headline and underlying inflation are at four-year lows, annual real wages have been growing for around seven consecutive quarters, the economy is still expanding, interest rates have been cut three times in the past six months, more than 1.1 million jobs have been created since we came to government—that's a record for any government in a single term—and the average unemployment rate is the lowest of any government in 50 years.

Then there is the budget, turning two Liberal deficits into two Labor surpluses and almost halving the deficit in our third year. The budget position has improved by more than $207 billion. Debt is $177 billion lower, in 2024-25, saving $60 billion in interest costs as a consequence. But we know the job is not finished. We know people are still under pressure, and that's why we're delivering more real, practical and ongoing help with the cost of living, including eight new changes that came into effect on 1 July, stage 3 tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer: one last year, one next year and another one the year after that.

We also know the importance of why we held the Economic Reform Roundtable this month, because we know we need to do more to boost productivity, strengthen our resilience and improve budget sustainability. The best way to do that is to do it together, by bringing lots of voices into the room to hear their ideas and find consensus.

At the election, Australians voted for higher living standards, higher wages and secure, well-paid jobs, and that's what we're working every day to deliver. The Economic Reform Roundtable proved that there's more common ground and consensus than there is conflict around the big challenges and opportunities in our economy. Higher living standards are the Holy Grail. That's why we've never taken our eyes off the productivity prize, and we're delighted by the enthusiasm and engagement that we've seen throughout this process. There's no shortage of ideas, and now our task is to turn those ideas into action.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the ducking and weaving which occurred when the government was asked to explain the basis on which it has expanded the Home Guarantee Scheme in a manner that will dramatically drive up housing prices, locking many first home buyers out the market. Proudly the coalition is the party of homeownership. That is why we delivered the Home Guarantee Scheme, allowing first home buyers to pay a reduced deposit, underpinned of course with the guarantee. But what has Labor done?

I'm sure Senator Walker, in her contribution, unfortunately didn't address this issue. Labor has uncapped the number of participants allowed in the scheme, and that will remove all income restrictions and means testing, opening this up to every first home buyer in this country. This is not the Labor way. Frankly on this side of the chamber we are shocked that Labor has opened up the scheme to not just the children of billionaires but the children of millionaires—well-off young Australians who don't need this support.

When you are either going to look at buying a house or going to an auction, why should those on low incomes—those really struggling to make ends meet and who could really benefit from a scheme like this—now being forced to compete with the big end of town: well-off young Australian first home buyers who, I presume, should not have resort to government support to buy their first home? This is, really, a disgrace. As we've heard from a number of different stakeholders, including the Insurance Council of Australia, it's estimated that this will have the effect of driving up house prices by as much as six per cent and even more. This is shocking. Labor has done nothing to build new homes in this country. We continue to hear these false promises about 1.2 million homes, and now, of course, the government has walked back that commitment as well.

I want to say very strongly that the government designed this scheme as a targeted policy to help Australians clear the deposit hurdle, to help them get into the house-buying market, and now Labor has recklessly and irresponsibly turned this into a free-for-all. How can this government stand there and justify opening this scheme up to any young Australian, no matter their means, no matter the wealth of their family—to the children of millionaires and billionaires? This is, really, a disgrace.

Labor has a shocking record when it comes to delivering houses. Labor has already spent $40 billion and delivered fewer homes than the coalition. Under the coalition, Australia was building close to 200,000 homes a year. Under Labor, it has dropped to barely 170,000. Labor is not providing a solution to their housing crisis; they are only making things worse. Labor has caused Australia's housing nightmare. In just three years, the government has presided over the biggest boom in Australia's population growth since the 1950s while overseeing an historic housing construction collapse. Labor's housing policies are incoherent, but nothing beats this.

The Home Guarantee Scheme is a very good scheme introduced by the former coalition government to help young Australians, first home buyers, get into the housing market. Now what does Labor do? Opens up this scheme to everyone in this country seeking to buy their first home. The contingent liability is estimated to be up to $60 billion being pushed onto taxpayers. What an absolute disgrace.

In their first term, the government introduced over 5,000 new regulations, including over 1,500 in Treasury and in the infrastructure space. The government is failing all young first home buyers. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.