Corinne Mulholland (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025—a bill that is bad for housing, bad for Australians and bad for homeownership. In the middle of a housing crisis, the shadow minister for housing thinks it's a good idea to move a bill like this—a bill which seeks to allow the Senate to block housing reforms. Not content with spending the better part of 10 years of a coalition government doing nothing on housing, the Liberals spent the last three years in this parliament trying to block every single housing reform before this Senate, and we all know how that worked out for them. The Australian people showed the Liberals and their shadow minister the door at the last election for his personal antics on housing, along with the Greens spokesperson for housing. Both of them were shown the door at the last election.

They took an approach to housing policy at the last election that sought to do a number of things: cut the number of homes being built, scrap Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund, bulldoze tens of thousands of new and affordable homes, increase taxes on new and affordable rental properties and scrap the national $1.2 million housing target. In the first few months of the new parliament, they tried to bulldoze 80,000 new rental homes and rip up Labor's build-to-rent laws.

Now the Liberals are trying to rip up Labor's five per cent deposits. This bill specifically seeks to give the Senate the power to disallow the five per cent deposit scheme, to scrap the Help to Buy program and to trash the Housing Australia Future Fund. This will make it even harder for Australians to get a home of their own in this country.

Already, 220,000 Australians have bought their first home with a five per cent deposit under Labor's policy. In my home state of Queensland, more than 50,000 people have used our five per cent deposit scheme to buy their first home. That's 50,000 Queenslanders that Senator Bragg, the Liberals and the Greens want to disallow from owning their own home. They want to stop working people owning their own home, because they have some philosophical opposition to people buying a first home with a five per cent deposit. They think that you shouldn't be allowed to do that. They'd rather that young people, families, single parents—all of them—get slugged with a 20 per cent deposit. And if you can't get the hundreds of thousands of dollars together to meet a 20 per cent deposit, there're quite okay with you getting slugged $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 and sometimes $50,000 in lenders mortgage insurance.

Senator Bragg thinks he knows better than the 220,000 Australians who have used our five per cent deposit scheme. He thinks it's a bad thing that they get to be in a home of their own. He wants to join up with the Greens in demonising those Australians who have used the scheme to buy their first home. We know that, on average, Australians are paying $23,000 in lenders mortgage insurance to secure a home loan, but Senator Bragg and the Liberals are quite okay with Australians being slugged with a tax from the bank. He doesn't support initiatives to put money in the back pockets of first home owners so they can get into their first home sooner.

Imagine the arrogance of putting a bill like this to the chamber—a bill that ignores the dreams and aspirations of Australians to get into their own home. Imagine an opposition, or whatever they're called these days, who want to make Australians feel bad for aspiring to homeownership, for wanting something to call their own, and who tell them they're doing something wrong by not paying outrageous taxes from the banks.

These are the kinds of out-of-touch musings from a Liberal Party that has lost its way, a party of people who just can't stand the sight of each other—the kind of modern Liberal Party with a bunch of blokes disappearing into a room to decide the fate of their female leader, with two shadow ministers sneaking off to those meetings behind the leader's back. I've said it before: I'll tell you what they weren't talking about in that house in the Melbourne suburbs. They weren't talking about housing policy. They weren't talking about how to get people into their first home. They weren't talking about easing the burden for Australians. They were talking about how to get themselves—blokes—into a better corner office in this building. It's disgusting. Shame on them.

Now they think they can get a say on the housing policy of this country, a housing policy that the Australian public roundly and loudly endorsed at the last election. We know how they operate. They have years of bad form in this place, of blocking, delaying and bulldozing housing at every turn, so do not give them another chance to send Australia backwards.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Bragg for introducing the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025, which One Nation supports. There's an urgent need for this bill, which restores the Senate's right to scrutinise regulations issued under a bill.

In recent years, more and more provisions which would previously have been included in the bill—hard coded, if you like—are now provided for in regulations which are written by bureaucrats for the benefit of bureaucrats, ministers, donors and mates. These are regulations that, in many cases, are beyond the reach of parliamentary scrutiny. They avoid parliament. We are increasingly seeing not government but dictatorship—a collectivist agenda informed by communist ideology and deployed with complete contempt for the parliamentary process and the large majority of Australians who did not vote Labor or Greens. The Liberal Party had form on this, yet Labor have normalised it.

The Albanese Labor government is in the process of removing the option of homeownership from the reach of everyday Australians. Young people will simply not be able to own their own home or use that home in the way that most in this chamber have been able to. Let me explain. One Nation opposed the Help to Buy scheme because the scheme ensures that people will, most likely, never fully own their own home—never. In the many, many years that this scheme makes you a slave to the government, in your own home, the government does nothing for you. For example, with any renovations you make, the government benefits from what you pay. Installing a new kitchen for $20,000 means you get only $12,000 in capital appreciation and the government pockets $8,000 in additional equity for doing nothing. If you spend $21,000, you'll first need to get the government's permission to modify your own home. You can't use any equity you do accumulate to refinance and free money up for buying a business, for instance. That's expressly forbidden.

Say your children get into trouble or need a hand to buy their own home. You can't help them. There is no part refinancing. You're trapped. If you want to buy the government out, then you have to pay them back in five per cent lots. Why? Well, the government knows prices appreciate. Taking a loan to pay all of the equity off in one go costs the government money. They miss out on the capital appreciation during the period you're paying that loan off. Say you want to use your home as security for a personal loan: no. There are no secured loans against one's own home. They're expressly prohibited. That's why we did not support the scheme.

We are proud we didn't support it, because it's a trap. It's not about letting our young get ahead; it's about limiting the amount they can get ahead by. That's what Labor is doing. As usual, communists make every person equal by making everyone poor. This scheme is a tax dressed up as a helping hand, a solution to the exemption of family homes from the capital gains tax. Nobody stands between this Labor government and the money they want to give away to other people in electoral bribes—sorry, 'promises'.

One Nation opposes the Albanese government's low-deposit homeownership scheme, which allows borrowers to get a home loan with a five per cent deposit—or, if they are single parents, two per cent. The government underwrites the mortgage so the bank does not wear the risk. You'll notice a pattern here: this government is every bit as friendly with Australia's rapacious banking sector as the Liberals were. Under the low-deposit scheme, the home can't be valued at more than $1.5 million, and there's no limit on the income of the applicant or the number of mortgages issued. Don't you just love this scheme! It should be called the 'making it easier for high-income earners to buy a house in urban Labor electorates' scheme.

No wonder the government's support in recent opinion polls is strongest amongst those earning more than $100,000. It's the party of the workers no more. The party of the rich is a better description of Labor. No wonder the Liberals have lost market share. Labor is stealing their voters. One Nation is now the party of the worker and the party of small-business owners who use their home as security to grow their business.

Our opposition to the low-deposit scheme has been proven to be the right decision. House prices in capital cities went up by between eight per cent and 10 per cent in the year to January 2026, adding $100,000 to the average Sydney home price. That's $100,000 more that people will have to borrow to get their home. Thanks, Labor! The additional demand for homes from these schemes forced the price up and made affording the mortgage harder. A low deposit is no help if you can't afford the repayments on 95 per cent or 98 per cent of a $1-million-plus mortgage. They've done this and destroyed hopes. The combined average price for a home in our capital cities is now $1.14 million.

One Nation policy is to allow first home owners to top up the first home owners' grant with secured equity from the person's own superannuation account. We will allow low-income earners to buy with a five per cent deposit against a government guarantee on the mortgage. Why won't this force up home prices? It will be because of the thing the Albanese government refuses to do: stopping mass immigration. A One Nation government will deport around 200,000 people who are here illegally and will have a moratorium on new arrivals for three years, creating negative immigration. As Australians engage with the housing scheme, they will find there will be a home available to purchase without the price of homes being pushed up. One Nation policies have been thought through. One policy complements another, and every Australian will benefit. Our policies come in suites—s-u-i-t-e-s—unlike this Labor government, which continues to throw money at problems it never solves because it never thinks things through. They want to look good, not do good. It's shallow and hurting young people.

Yesterday, the Reserve Bank put up interest rates by 0.25 per cent, which would not have happened if government policies had not driven up house prices by eight to 10 per cent in the last year. Every mortgage holder in Australia is now facing higher repayments because of the Albanese government's inability to manage government policy. Senator Bragg is right that this bill is necessary to provide scrutiny and to try and elevate the standard of government in this country. Can I say to the Labor government: for the love of Australia, please, please stop trying to help. You're making it worse, especially for young people. Let people get about their business, keep more of their own money and more easily pay for their homes themselves. Stop bringing in millions of new arrivals—millions of new arrivals—all of whom need a home in which to live. Stop forcing people out of their homes with the evil land tax, as Labor are doing in Victoria, so that your mates running union super funds can buy up the homes. Every new scheme makes things worse for young Australians. That's why we don't support your idiot ideas—your dishonest, ludicrous ideas.

Where else should the accountability be forced on the government? Foreign corporations used to pay 30 per cent withholding tax on housing investments like build to rent. Labor has cut that tax to 15 per cent. It's been halved; you've looked after your corporate mates from overseas. Labor makes it easy for its mates, globalist foreign wealth funds, to rip more money out of Australia and to rip more money off Australians. You lower the tax, and the tax will come out of the people instead. Let's be clear. This Labor government said to foreign corporate landlords like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State—with interlocking ownership, they are in reality BlackRock Inc. Labor said to BlackRock Inc., 'We'll cut the amount of tax you pay in half.' Australians: forget the Australian dream of owning your own home. Labor's dream is that you live in a shoebox apartment paying rent to BlackRock Inc forever whilst those foreign corporations pay less tax than you do. Labor has just cut it in half.

That's what 'build to rent' means. Whenever you hear 'build to rent' from Labor, remember renting forever to a foreign corporate landlord. They will build homes for sure, but Australians will never ever own them. It's 'build to rent' forever. Part of the United Nations and World Economic Forum's agenda is global control of people and wealth transfer from the people to global wealth funds like BlackRock Inc. This Labor government is helping that along by giving these foreign corporations a big tax cut to incentivise foreign corporations to buy Australian homes.

The bill did not reduce the tax for Australian owners; it brought foreign owners' tax rate down to the same level as Australian investors. That's the most telling part of all. This bill only changed the tax treatment of foreign predatory multinational corporations. Is Labor the party for Australia, or is it the party for foreign corporations? Build to rent answers that question. Clearly Labor is for the foreign corporations like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street—BlackRock Inc. That's why Labor's policies on mass immigration and housing are designed to destroy homeownership for all young families.

Instead, One Nation is for Australians owning their own home. On all this, I told you so for years. I initiated the mass immigration and housing debates four to five years ago and have hammered both. Only One Nation's housing policy covers all aspects: supply, demand, construction cost and finance. I'm going to do something a little unusual and quote extensively from Senator Bragg's dissenting report on the build to rent bill. I hope you don't mind, Senator Bragg. It goes to the very heart of what's wrong with the Labor Party. The following passages are taken from the dissenting report following the committee inquiry into the Labor Party's build-to-rent scheme:

Build to Rent has had minimal cut-through in Australia because our tax settings are designed to favour individual, 'mum and dad' investors, not institutions. That is appropriate.

This legislation seeks to tip the scales in favour of institutions through tax concessions, in order to make Build to Rent projects profitable for industry super funds and foreign fund managers. Labor thinks that institutions need a leg up over Australian first home buyers.

Dr Murray—

a witness in the inquiry—

was critical of the Bill's attempted perversion of our tax arrangements:

'It's not clear to me why local investors shouldn't be advantaged over foreign investors in Australian housing. I don't see that there's a good argument … for levelling the playing field there. It's not clear to me, if the intention is to attract super funds into this, why owning your own home via your super fund and renting your own home from your super fund is better than owning your own home and using that money to buy what is the best asset to own in retirement.'

That's similar to One Nation's housing policy. Here's another quote from Senator Bragg:

At the public hearing, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia ('ASFA') suggested that Australians would prefer Black Rock and Cbus be the nation's landlords, and described mum and dad investors as undertaking a 'hobby activity'.

Really? Do you think the Australian people want to rent their house from a super fund? A hobby activity—come on! Senator Bragg continues:

This is the view of a vested interest—

that Labor is cuddling up to—

Most Australians would not agree with this proposal.

Another witness observed that we are seeing a corporatisation of housing in Australia, not from the usual suspects, the Liberal Party, but from the Labor Party, the former party of the workers, headed by Prime Minister Albanese. A witness said:

… pushing mum-and-dad investors out of the housing market will result in less competition. What we're seeing in the Northern Hemisphere is a horrific new software program called YieldStar, which in Atlanta coordinates rental increases for 81 per cent of rental properties. The board of supervisors in San Francisco has now banned this as a monopolistic practice. There's just nothing in this legislation that even prepares us for what's coming …

Hence the need for Senator Bragg's bill. His dissenting report said:

The Housing Industry Association pointed to the importance of Australia's housing market maintaining a focus on individual ownership:

'… with the association and connection with home and with location, and a sense of place and purpose … All the evidence shows that people who own their own home are far less likely to be incarcerated and more likely to be gainfully employed. All of the evidence shows positive economic, social and cultural outcomes.'

Personal responsibility is a cornerstone of a safe and productive society, I say. Senator Bragg continues:

Australians are not interested in subsidising institutional investors. When asked what organisations would be the key beneficiaries of Build to Rent tax concessions, Treasury confirmed that foreign fund managers would be at the centre—

Really? Fund managers? Foreigners? How very corporate of the Labor Party!

Some of the most alarming evidence from the public hearing was that the passing of this bill could see Australian taxpayers subsidising foreign governments in their investment in our housing market. Dr Murray warned the committee:

I find it interesting because we've already even got foreign investment funds doing build to rent. What's even funnier is that the largest one is a foreign government. We've got the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, who owns the Smith Collective on the Gold Coast, which is 1,251 build-to-rent dwellings, and we're now proposing to offer them a better tax treatment for something they're already doing—through a foreign government. I find that a bizarre outcome of this proposed bill.

It seems Prime Minister Albanese is not only best friends with billionaires like Larry Fink from BlackRock and Bill Gates from 'Vaccines R Us' but also best mates with the Islamist Abu Dhabi regime. The dissenting report said:

Approaches like Build to Rent endeavour to emulate the corporate housing model which has seen a downturn in the United States housing market.

Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US. According to the US Government Accountability Office ('the GAO'), large institutional investors emerged following the global financial crisis, purchasing foreclosed homes at auction in bulk and converting them into rental housing.

Prime Minister Albanese's housing schemes will lead to foreclosures and misery. This is not an unintended outcome; it's the point of it. Communists detest homeownership. It provides people with independence from the government, and that's the opposite of the fundamental purpose of the Labor government, which is to make people reliant on the government.

Senator Bragg continues:

This corporate housing model, in order to generate a return on investment for institutional investors, relies on individuals being locked into a cycle of perpetual renting.

There is a growing consensus in the US that this model has failed and is hurting prospective first home buyers. Lawmakers from both sides of politics are introducing legislation to limit institutional investment accordingly.

While the US is moving away from corporate housing, the Australian Labor Party is forcing Australia is into it.

One Nation is dedicated to all Australians being able to own their own home and to use that home as they see fit. (Time expired)

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've been listening with interest to the comments from Senator Roberts, the senator for One Nation, on the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025. I note with interest—this wasn't how I intended to start my speech—that he said that only One Nation has a plan to solve Australia's housing crisis. Yet, throughout his speech, he's quoted Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg and his dissenting report. So I'm curious as to how—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're Liberals!

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Right? It's curious as to how it's One Nation's plan when it's actually the words of Senator Bragg that Senator Roberts is using.

Let me be very clear: One Nation has no plan for anything in this country aside from dividing Australians. And to suggest that migrants in this country are responsible for the housing crisis is false and lazy. The fact we do not have enough houses in this country is a failure of housing policy, not the fault of any single migrant that has come to this country. I take offence to it, Senator Roberts, as I'm a first-generation Australian. My parents were migrants who came to this country in the 1960s and worked their guts out. I don't know if it's perhaps One Nation policy that I should go back to where they came from, even though I was born here. Perhaps I'm occupying a house that I shouldn't be occupying.

So let me talk about homeownership in a legitimate policy discussion. The problem with homeownership in this country is that we do not have enough houses. The problem is with supply. We need legitimate, robust policies to create more houses in this country so that young Australians—all Australians—can realise their dream of homeownership. That is our job here. It is not to divide Australians and not to point blame at individuals on the street as to why someone may or may not be able to buy a home.

Our concern and the reason for my colleague Senator Bragg's private senator's bill is that we do not believe that the Home Guarantee Scheme is going to help. The Home Guarantee Scheme will create more demand—and it has created more demand—without addressing the underlying lack of supply. This is not something that just Senator Bragg is saying. This is not something that just the Liberal Party is saying. The Reserve Bank governor, Michele Bullock, has confirmed that there would be, in their view, a price increase for first home buyers as a result of this scheme.

We absolutely want more young people, more Australians, to be able to own their own home, but we have to address supply. We don't have enough houses in this country because it is too hard to build a house in this country. The building code and the relevant regulations and requirements are so difficult to navigate that it is so much harder than it should be to build a dwelling in this country. That is something we have to address.

This is something we took to the last election. We campaigned on freezing the NCC. When we did that before the last election, Labor accused us of wanting to build dodgy homes, shoddy houses: 'You want really bad houses.' No, we don't. We want good-quality houses that actually get built, instead of winding Australian homebuyers and builders in this never-ending cycle of red tape. But guess what? Labor now want to freeze the NCC because they understand now what we understood before the last election—that it is too hard to build houses in this country.

I've spoken in this chamber many times about the challenges that Australians are facing from the construction industry because of the prevalence of unacceptable conduct by the CFMEU. That is something else that needs to be addressed. There are rogue elements of this union that make it harder and harder and harder for houses and units to be built in this country. They interfere in the process. Independent analysis has confirmed that the cost of the dwellings inside an apartment building can be up to 30 per cent higher where the CFMEU is involved. Are we just going to blindly pretend that that is not happening or are we actually going to address that? We know that. We've heard it over and over. You should have a look at my social media; I get attacked by people on there all the time in relation to this topic.

I am not talking about the rank-and-file members of the CFMEU, the hardworking people who need the protection of a good union to ensure that their rights are realised on a worksite. I'm talking about the people that do the wrong thing and use the money and resources of the CFMEU as if they were their own. They use it to bully, they use it to intimidate and they use it to line their own pockets, and they do that at the expense of everyday Australians who go to work and try to do the right thing, and everyday Australians who try to own their own home but can't because it's getting far too hard. We can't ignore that anymore in this chamber. We can't pretend that it's not happening, because it is.

We've been speaking a lot about build-to-rent as well. Build-to-rent is not the solution to the housing crisis in this country. Liberals believe that, if someone would like to buy their own home, they should be able to do that. The solution is not to say, 'It's too hard and too expensive to own your own home, but what we're going to do is assist you into a cycle of forever renting.' There is no issue with renting long term if that is what you want to do, but that should not be your only choice.

The Liberal Party believes in choice. We believe that you should be the person that determines what you are going to do with your life. So if you want to own your own home, you should be able to do that. You shouldn't be told: 'No, no, no: owning a home is not for you; renting is for you. We would like the super funds to own the homes, and you can rent your home from the super fund.' But, mind you—and I've spoken about this many, many times, and I'm going to get cranky messages and cranky emails about it—I don't hate superannuation. Let me be clear, and let me start with that. Superannuation is important, but it is not the answer to all the problems. When superannuation started in this country, most people who wanted to own their own home were able to. That is no longer the case. We need to look at the circumstances we face today. Again, I've spoken about it many times.

The largest-growing cohort of homeless in this country is women over 55. A 55-year-old woman cannot access her super to help her buy a home so that she has housing security in retirement. However, 10 years later, she can access that super to pay rent to someone and diminish her super asset in paying rent. But she can't use it to buy her own asset. That is fundamentally wrong. We cannot pretend that is okay.

People suggest that, because I speak about that, I hate super, or that Senator Bragg hates super. But we actually see that there are problems in the way this system now operates. Like any system, over time, changes need to be made. Yet superannuation has turned into this sacred cow that nobody is allowed to touch, despite the fact that we know that the one single thing that has the most import impact on someone's security in retirement is owning their own home. We are no longer focusing on the importance of acquiring that asset but, rather, saying, 'Here's some superannuation, and you have to put your money into that rather than putting it into your own home.' You don't get the choice. I don't understand that.

I think what's really hard for me to understand is why this government won't allow a pathway that creates that choice for Australians. My view, and the view of my Liberal colleagues, is that it is the job of government to create frameworks for individuals to ensure that they have every opportunity to do what they need to do and then to get out of their way. It is not our job to interfere, it is not our job to tell people how to live their lives, and it's not our job to tell people, 'You can own a home only under the criteria and the circumstances that we tell you that you can do that under.' That's why we think this scheme isn't a good one, that in fact it is probably a reckless one.

Yesterday we saw interest rates rise, and it's probably not going to be the first rise we see. Inflation has gone up to 3.8 per cent, and the Reserve Bank has indicated a view that it might go up to somewhere around 4.2 per cent. That is an example of the impact of this type of housing policy. We said this last year. We said this would happen, and it has happened. The Reserve Bank said this was likely to happen, and it has eventuated.

So, again, when those on the other side suggest that Liberals do not want people to own their own homes, that is wrong. We absolutely do. I heard numbers being spouted yesterday about X thousand people who wouldn't have been in their own home, that we tried to block that. No: what we did was try to explain that you can't address the housing crisis by simply facilitating greater entry and not addressing supply. You must address supply. That is what we are trying to do. It's not what One Nation are trying to do, despite what Senator Roberts might suggest. The problem is: who ends up paying for all of this? It's Australians who do. The Australian taxpayer does. We have to pay higher taxes to fund this largess. I think one of the things that we need to consider and that we need to do—and this bill from Senator Bragg does—is ensure Australians are protected from whims of government making really significant decisions without meaningful consultation or parliamentary oversight. That is what has happened here.

Regulation should be about filling in the detail and making things clearer and simply, but not making substantive changes to the way our actual economy functions, interfering the supply and demand mechanisms of housing, which is what has happened here, and, again, it's interfered with the demand mechanism without allowance or appropriate supply.

For the Liberal Party, our priorities are to boost housing supply, to boost development, to boost homeownership and to reduce the red tape around construction to ensure that quality dwellings are built, are built in a timely fashion and are built without consumers and builders being run around in circles on what they can and cannot do on their own land. Recent ABS data showed us that home completions In the September quarter of last year fell by almost 4,100 dwellings compared to the year before. At a time where we have a crisis of supply, that's 4,000 fewer dwellings over a 12-month period. This indicates to us the significance of the problem coupled with the fact that now we have a scheme that brings more people in without the requisite supply, with diminishing supply, and the cost burden of that demand driven scheme lies squarely at the feet of the Australian taxpayer. That is unacceptable.

In just three years this government has presided over a huge increase in Australia's population whilst overseeing a collapse in construction. This needs to change, and this needs to be seriously addressed, and I believe it is incumbent on those of us on these two sides of the chamber to do that together to ensure that every single Australian that would like to own their own home can do so without being pointed to a build-to-rent scheme.

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting this bill, the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025, because the government is in the business of helping first home buyers buy their own homes. The government is in the business of delivering social and affordable housing. The government is in the business of building more homes and giving renters a fair go. The government is not in the business of holding up housing. Unlike those opposite, who have continually voted to stop young Australians from accessing secure affordable housing and who are now, instead of real policy, doubling down with obstruction dressed up as accountability.

Let's be absolutely clear what this bill is actually about and what it proposes to do, because the consequences are really serious and can be catastrophic for those who are seeking a home. The Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025 would once again give those opposite the opportunity to block real progress on housing. If this bill were to pass, it would open the door for the Senate to disallow key housing programs that Australians are already relying on. That includes the home guarantee scheme, a scheme that has already helped more than 185,000 Australians into homeownership since Labor came into government—gone. It would allow the opposition to scrap Labor's help-to-buy scheme, which is designed to help another 40,000 Australians buy their first home. That would be gone. It would allow them to dismantle the Housing Australia Future Fund, one of the cornerstone programs delivering on our commitment to build 55,000 social and affordable homes across the country—gone.

Now let's talk about what this means in real terms for actual families and for first home buyers. It would mean tens of thousands of first home buyers finding it harder to buy their own home, because they would need to save significantly larger deposits. It means that every first home buyer would be forced to fork out an average of $23,000 in lenders mortgage insurance just to get a foot in the door. Saving for a full deposit or saving for a deposit plus mortgage lenders insurance can take first home buyers a decade, which is why our reforms have sought to intervene in this process to make it easier for these people. It's demoralising and it feels out of reach for so many. That is what this government is actually addressing.

This bill before you would mean social and affordable housing projects that are already under construction would be delayed, forcing more Australians to wait even longer for secure housing when they are already under pressure—and we know we are facing a housing crisis. Without Commonwealth support to help community housing providers close the funding gap, the construction of thousands of social and affordable homes would simply stop. That is the reality of this bill. It does not build homes, it does not help renters and it does not support first home buyers. It would be a disaster.

Clearly, those opposite haven't listened and they haven't learned any lessons from last year's election. The Australian community were pretty clear. They voted for an ambitious housing agenda. They voted for a party with a plan. Those opposite didn't have a plan ahead of the election, and they don't have one now. They're blocking and bulldozing. Senator Bragg thinks it's the Liberals' greatest-hits album. Well, the voters put this tired old track in the reject bin at JB Hi-Fi, and that's where it is going to stay. It's got all of the noise of a construction site but no houses at the end of the track.

Our government has no illusions about the challenges that many Australians from all walks of life are having in accessing a house—renters, young people, families, older women—and it can't go on. This is a life-defining challenge for many Australians, and it is a generation-defining challenge for this country. If those supporting this bill in the chamber think it will get Aussies into more homes, they really need to get real. The reason why we are in this position today is that the coalition government tapped out of housing altogether. They didn't lock in, and now Australians are locked out.

When people say 2026 is just 2016 again, they're talking about 'Lush Life' by Zara Larsson, and Snapchat filters. They are not talking about the utter void of housing policy presented by the coalition government at the time. Now it seems those opposite are not satisfied with sitting on their hands for a decade. Now they're on the opposition benches they have found the strength and willpower to do something about housing, but that something is bills like this one—bills that try to slow down our housing build and stop young Australians from buying their first home. They want to scrap Help to Buy. They want to scrap the Home Guarantee Scheme.

I know that many people out there in our community are sitting on their couches tonight and every night with Domain and real estate ads open, planning what inspections they'll go to on the weekend. They're looking at the price ranges and deciding which houses they've got a fighting chance of buying on auction day. The housing policies of our government are what get them to those Saturday auctions and inspections and help them to find their very first home of their own. And so they should. We want to find first homes for our Australians.

The last thing that young Australians need when they are planning those inspections is to hear that Senator Bragg and those opposite don't want them at those inspections. Those opposite want to see young people like them stuck in dodgy rentals instead of a home that they can call their own. Those opposite want to see families with young kids continue to live with their parents as they desperately try to scrape together a deposit for a house. The only brags that I'm interested in are the humble brags shared on Instagram by happy homebuyers in front of a 'for sale' sign.

The bill keeps those Australians in limbo, and our government wants no part of that. We can't ignore the generational dimensions of this crisis. A generation ago, families could reasonably expect that hard work and saving would result in a home of their own. Today that expectation is not a reality for some. Young Australians are being forced to delay milestones that previous generations took for granted, like starting families, investing in their futures and building equity. This isn't just about bricks and mortar; it's about opportunity, security and fairness. When the doors to homeownership close on a generation, the consequences ripple across every aspect of their lives and across the life of this nation.

These are the same tactics those opposite used in the last term, and make no mistake: it held us back. If not for those tactics, we would have seen more social housing built by now. If not for those tactics, we'd see more first home buyers in their own homes right now. They may as well just be honest with those who are counting on the housing policies of this government. They might as well tell them that they have no problem playing politics with the housing crisis. They are happy to let these programs disappear into the ether, and they don't care about putting an alternative on the table that is going to work for those who need it most. They think that playing SimCity with this is the issue.

We are talking about getting real people who want real homes into those homes, and it is well and truly time that we just got on with it. We want to get on with it, and we are getting on with it. That's why we funded and legislated the programs that get people into homes. It's this agenda that is worth $45 billion. It's an agenda that is the most ambitious of any Commonwealth government in the post-war period. It's an agenda that helps first home buyers into a home of their own by helping them with a five per cent deposit. We took that plan to the election, and I reckon people agreed with that plan. I reckon people just want us to get on with it—an agenda that builds more homes.

Housing supply also has a phenomenal impact on the price of housing in this country. If we want to improve housing affordability in this country, the answer is simple: we need to build more houses. So we're building 1.2 million more. We're cutting red tape, we're training more tradies and we're building the infrastructure that is crucial if we want to hit that goal. It's an agenda that delivers 55,000 social and affordable homes, and these homes are important. I think about the essential workers—teachers, nurses, early childhood educators, social workers—that our communities desperately need. These are hardworking people who serve our community. They are doing everything right, counting every penny, and still can't afford to buy. They can't afford to buy the security that homeownership provides in the places where they want to live and in the communities that they serve.

Through no fault of their own, these essential workers can't afford to live near where they work, and that is just not on. Those opposite want us to hold all of these new social and affordable homes and the people who want to buy them hostage. It is out of step with what the community needs, and it is out of step with what the community wants. Those homes are not just bricks and mortar, as I said; they provide stability, they provide safety and they provide dignity. The schemes that get Australians into those homes are a lifeline. Five per cent deposits free young people from the cycle of renting and waiting as they try to climb the mountain to save for a deposit. Families can plan their futures, and they can gain stability in the communities where they work and where they live. Getting those people into homes is our focus, not playing political games.

Let's not forget that, at last year's election, those opposite promised that they'd cut the number of homes being built. They promised that they'd scrap our Housing Australia Future Fund and the tens of thousands of social and affordable homes that it enables. They promised to increase taxes on new, affordable rentals. They promised that they'd dump this government's national housing target of 1.2 million new homes, so we know exactly what the opposition stands for when it comes to housing. They have been completely transparent about what they think about first home buyers. It's par for the course when you remember that the coalition built only 373 social and affordable homes over the decade that they were in government.

But let us remember: they brought those promises to the election, just as this government did. The voters have spoken, and their voices were heard loud and clear. They rejected the politics of obstruction and embraced a plan of construction. Being elected to this place to represent our communities is a privilege, and the role of those of us with that privilege is to listen to the voters. They never get it wrong. I have said it before, and I will say it again: the voters have asked us to stop playing politics with this issue and just get on with the job. The voters have rejected the housing policies those opposite brought to the last election. This bill suggests that those opposite are in denial about that, and it's condescending to the people of Australia, quite frankly.

Already in this new parliament, they've tried to bulldoze 80,000 new rental homes. Now they're trying to rip up Labor's five per cent deposit for all first home buyers. It's really quite bewildering that they think that this is an appropriate course of action. As I've already outlined, the consequences of this are real. If the bill passes, tens of thousands of first home buyers will need larger deposits, every first home buyer will be forced to pay on average an additional $23,000 in mortgage insurance, and the social and affordable housing projects that are under construction right now will be delayed. That is the reality of this bill. It does not build homes, it does not help renters and it does not support families. It puts roadblocks where there should be doors.

This government is building homes. Those opposite are continuing to build the roadblocks. If those opposite were serious about addressing the housing crisis in this country and were ready to start listening to voters, they would stop playing these political games. Housing is this generation's defining issue, and I hope that none of us here in this place look back upon this generation and know that we could have done more and regret that we did not.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a bunch of baloney we've heard from those opposite. The Liberal Party opposed Labor's various attempts at housing policy because they are failed policies that we knew were going to be failed policies when they were introduced to this place over the last few years. History has now shown that they are failed policies, and we have been proved correct.

Let's start with the Home Guarantee Scheme, which independent experts and people such as the Reserve Bank have acknowledged has poured petrol onto prices in the housing market, causing them to rise by as much as 10 per cent. If you have forced up the cost of a house by 10 per cent and 95 per cent of that is going on people's mortgages, that, in the face of rising interest rates, is a direct hit on young Australians who are aspiring to homeownership. It's a way of making them poorer. In fact, lenders mortgage insurance, which those opposite jump up and down about in this place, was one to two per cent of the total house price. Property prices have gone up by 10 per cent under this Labor government's policy. That's 10 per cent against a cost of one to two per cent. That's the economics of this Labor government. That's the impact of this Labor government on young Australians who are aspiring to enter the housing market—which we support. The Liberal Party supports 100 per cent the aspirations of all Australians to enter the housing market.

What Australians don't want is to be renting. They don't want their landlords to be overseas corporations or the government. They want to own their own home. But they want to do it in a way that's affordable, and the way to do that is to address the supply side of our market. The one policy that the Labor Party has adopted in that respect was copied directly from us at the last election. It was a policy to cut red tape in the housing market, which they demonised during the election campaign, but post-election they have now suddenly, mysteriously adopted it. That is the only part of the Labor Party housing policy that is worthwhile. Young Australians do want to get into the housing market, but getting into the housing market at any cost is not good policy, and the Labor Party's policies in this respect, particularly the Home Guarantee Scheme, have been shown to push up the cost of the housing market.

We've got a situation in the broader economy where the Reserve Bank is currently trying to slay the dragon of inflation, trying to fight the fire of inflation, which is on the increase again. The Reserve Bank yesterday increased interest rates. But Michele Bullock in her statement after the announcement also said that they expect inflation to rise even further. That is very, very bad news for all Australians because what it does is smash standards of living, reduce the disposable income of households and, of course, put further upward pressure on interest rates. Many commentators are expecting not just the interest rate rise that we saw yesterday but a succession of interest rate rises over the year ahead. That will have a devastating effect on those young Australians who have been induced into the housing market by Labor's offer of a five per cent deposit, which has increased the cost of the house they bought in the first place and now, flowing through to inflation, is increasing the costs of their mortgage, as interest rates rise over time.

The trouble with this government's approach is that, while the Reserve Bank is attempting to slay the dragon of inflation and put out the fire, this government is running round with a can of petrol, pouring it onto the fire. Things like the Home Guarantee Scheme and the increases in government spending across the board are putting upward pressure on demand in the economy, which is putting upward pressure on prices, particularly in the housing sector. Nothing this government is doing is helping the Reserve Bank. We have fiscal and monetary policy working in opposition to one another.

We've seen this before under Labor governments—they can't seem to understand. While the Reserve Bank is trying to put downward pressure on inflation in order to contain rising interest rates, they are just throwing money into the economy, and that is having a very negative impact on all Australians. Standards of living are being destroyed. Household spending—the available family budget—is reducing. Pay packets are not keeping up with the inflation in the market and the rising interest rate burden on average Australians who own their own homes and are paying off a mortgage.

If the interest rate rises that are currently predicted come about, Australian households with a mortgage will be significantly worse off over the next 12 months, and that is on the back of the first 3½ years of this Labor government, which saw one of the fastest declines in the standard of living and in disposable household incomes that Australia has ever seen. Household budgets were smashed over the first three years of this Labor government, and, with rising interest rates, the damage to those household budgets will be even higher.

Other parts of the Labor Party policy which are also failing include their promises to build houses, which are proving to be extraordinarily expensive and slow. That's not surprising when you have a Labor government in charge of building anything. They want to have foreign corporations and superannuation funds building Build to Rent properties. I understand the idea probably came out of a Labor government focus group. It sounds good, but, in the end, Australians do not want to live in those sorts of properties; they aspire to own their own home.

Policy should be directed at reducing costs, and that means lowering the red tape burden on construction. It's also means getting the criminal elements out of the construction industry—yes, the CFMEU, but, if there are criminal building companies, they should be out of the construction industry, as well. We need to clean up the construction industry. We need to remove the extra costs that are present in that industry, and that will give Australian young people and Australian families the chance to get ahead, without having to pay the extra tax of the construction industry in Australia, with the criminality that has been very clearly demonstrated through the CFMEU activity and the fact that the Labor government was forced to put that union into administration. If there are other criminal elements within the construction industry, they also need to be found and drummed out.

The fact is, we are never going to solve these problems unless we can reduce costs that way. We also need to reduce the burden of red tape. It shouldn't take as long as it does to get a proposed housing development from a greenfield or brownfield site to construction on houses being underway. It simply takes too long in this country to get those projects underway.

We need to see a real effort at bringing that supply into the market so that younger Australians, in particular, can aspire to have their own homes and to have a mortgage that they can afford to pay. Instead, we see this government pulling on all the wrong levers, pouring fuel on the fire of inflation in the marketplace and pouring fuel on the fire of house prices, which makes it even less possible for younger Australians to get into the market. We see this government delivering very, very little in terms of their overblown promises to actually build houses.

In fact, they've purchased more houses—in competition with Australians—than they have built houses. They've gone out into the marketplace and purchased houses that Australian families, Australian young people, would have been bidding on. Rather than see those houses in the hands of those Australians, they have purchased them to put on their ledger that they've got some houses. That is not good policy. The Labor Party's policy suite has failed. It's visibly failed. It's demonstrably failed in the marketplace. It needs to be completely rethought. Throw these policies out and start again.

Ellie Whiteaker (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's be honest about what this bill, the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025, would do. It would make it harder for first home buyers to buy their own home. This bill by the Liberal Party—by Senator Bragg—will make it harder for first home buyers to buy their first home and will stand in the way of the delivery of affordable housing for Australians. That's what this bill will do.

There's the saying, 'I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed'—but, no, I'm actually pretty angry. I think Australians who are looking to get into their first home have the right to be angry too, because what's really clear with this bill before us is that the Liberal Party are only here to play politics. At least they're consistent. They will continue their record of doing absolutely nothing to help address the housing crisis that their government left us in. Only Labor has got a plan to build more homes. Only Labor will get renters a better deal. And only Labor will help more Australians into homeownership.

Housing is one of the biggest challenges facing Australians. People are working hard, they're doing everything right, but too many still can't afford a place to call home. Young people are lining up, down the street and around the block, for rental inspections. In fact, one of my young staff told me yesterday that she and her housemate had been to 100 rental inspections between them in Perth. That is just extraordinary. Families with kids, the kinds of families who, a generation ago, would have been quite easily able to own their own home, can't get a foothold in the housing market. I hear it from young people in my home state of Western Australia all the time. They feel they will never get the opportunity to own their own home. We hear it from parents who worry they can't give their kids the stability they received as children.

We know how tough the housing market is, and that is why we are throwing everything at it. We have an ambitious $43 billion housing agenda, which is having an impact right across the country. We've taken the Commonwealth from being, frankly, a negligent bystander in housing to delivering the boldest and most ambitious housing agenda this country has seen in the postwar period. Under the Prime Minister, we've made a real switch and we're tackling the housing crisis from every angle. Our Housing Australia Future Fund is a $10 billion investment to build 55,000 new social and affordable homes over the next five years. It's the largest national investment in housing in a generation. It's a permanent, ongoing source of funding to increase supply—that is, build more houses—but also to create jobs and to make housing more affordable for Australians who have been priced out for too long. It is our long-term commitment to rebuild our social housing system.

Meanwhile, those on the other side of the chamber are actively trying to make it more difficult for Australians to own their own home. They are actively trying to make it more difficult for us to build more houses. They are standing in the way of more affordable housing for Australians, and, without a credible housing policy of their own, all they do is block and bulldoze. For almost a decade while they were in government, the Liberals and Nationals were completely tapped out of our national housing challenge. They completely ignored it, shut their eyes, turned away, turned their back on Australians and showed no leadership on housing. They had no plan and they made no investment into improving housing supply. For most of their nine years in government, the coalition didn't even have a housing minister. Can you imagine? It's extraordinary.

It's no wonder that, when we came to government, this country had nothing to show on housing for the nine years that those opposite were in government. After almost a decade in government, the Liberals and Nationals had built only 373 social and affordable homes. Again, I'm not disappointed anymore; I'm angry. Australians are angry, young people are angry, and they want us to take action.

But, at the last election, those opposite actually made a promise to cut the number of homes that would be built, because they wanted to scrap our Housing Australia Future Fund and bulldoze the policy of tens of thousands of new social and affordable homes. They promised to increase taxes on new affordable rental properties, and they promised to scrap our target of building 1.2 million homes. In the first six months of the new parliament, my first six months here, I must say I didn't have high expectations of those opposite, but I have been shocked that they tried to bulldoze 80,000 new rental homes that would offer more security and more affordable rent for Australians, when they attempted to block and undo our build-to-rent laws. I've been shocked and angry that they have voted against every single housing measure that we have brought before this place. And now the shadow minister for housing and homelessness, Senator Bragg, is trying to rip up our plan for five per cent deposits for all first home buyers. It's surprising to me that, after an election where Australians resoundingly rejected the politics of delay and destruction peddled by those opposite, they are still sending a message to young Australians that they haven't listened and haven't learnt. Instead, they've reverted to their usual tactics of blocking and bulldozing at every single opportunity.

The true test of a housing policy, if we get to the real thing that we need now, is getting more people into homes. We don't need more bureaucracy and we certainly don't need more paperwork. This Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill proposed by Senator Bragg would allow the coalition and the Greens to team up once again to block real progress on housing. If we were to pass this bill, it would give the Senate the opportunity to disallow the Home Guarantee Scheme, which has already helped more than 185,000 Australians into homeownership since we came to government. I'm going to say that number again because it's a really impressive number—185,000 Australians into homeownership since we came to government. If this bill were to pass the Senate, it would allow the opposition to scrap Labor's Help to Buy program, a program which will help another 40,000 Australian families into homeownership.

What will this mean for Australians who are working hard and doing everything right? The Liberals want to make it harder for tens of thousands of first home buyers to get into their own home, by increasing the amount they need for their deposit. Every Australian first home buyer will be forced to fork out an average of $23,000 for lenders mortgage insurance if they try to buy a home. The social and affordable housing projects that are under construction right now will be delayed or stopped, making more Australians wait longer for secure, affordable housing, when they're already doing it tough. Without the Commonwealth support that community housing providers need to plug the gap, the construction of thousands of social and affordable homes around the country will just stop. That would be the impact of this bill if it were to pass this place.

My message to those opposite is really simple. You don't fix the housing crisis by blocking the building of new homes. You don't fix the housing crisis by bulldozing plans to construct the homes that we need. No-one is pretending that this is a simple task—to build the housing at the scale that we need to fix this crisis.

Debate interrupted.