Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 September 2026:

The extent and impact of foreign influence in Australia's critical infrastructure sectors,

with particular reference to:

(a) the nature, scale and sources of foreign ownership, investment and control in critical infrastructure, including energy, water, telecommunications, ports and transport assets;

(b) the adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks, including the role of the Foreign Investment Review Board, in identifying and mitigating risks to Australia's economic sovereignty and national interest, including reviews of the 'National Interest Test' used by the Foreign Investment Review Board to assess and advise on referred matters;

(c) the potential economic impacts of foreign influence, including effects on competition, pricing, supply chain resilience and long-term investment outcomes;

(d) risks to regional communities, strategic industries and essential services arising from foreign control or influence over infrastructure assets;

(e) the effectiveness of transparency, disclosure and compliance mechanisms relating to foreign investment and ownership; and

(f) any other related matters.

As we are getting down to the nitty-gritty, we're seeing the effect of the war in the Middle East on supply chains throughout the world. It's something we saw in COVID. We are at the end of a very long dependency line right throughout the world. This involves our critical infrastructure as well. If we are not the sovereign holders of our own infrastructure—if we are not the person that makes the final decision—we are at risk of losing access to the key things that keep this country strong and that keep this country operating. Whether it be transport, whether it be ports or whether it be electricity—whether it be any service—these are the key things that keep a nation strong. Sovereignty is the definition of not being at the behest of others but being able to make your own decisions without coming under duress.

As the rule of law around the world is diminishing to the rule of power, I have been approached by numerous organisations, some partly owned by foreign companies or foreign countries, that are seeing an increasing reach down from ownership into the management of their businesses to a level that they have never seen before. This is not always welcome. This is the real risk of what can happen if the basis of law throughout the world goes down and we move to a power based world. That is not good enough for Australia. What I am looking at is to move this to the committee where we can look at these things—the transport sector, airports, ports, electricity holders and so many things—and work out if this is in the best interests of our country.

We welcome investment. It builds services and things, it employs people and it gives us what we want. But do we want the influence? In some cases, the answer will be, 'Not a problem. There is no issue in the world,' because it's not targeting any one nation and it's not targeting any group or ownership structures. It's targeting the very influence right throughout it. I can tell you that there are two specific countries that I have been approached about, and they couldn't be further apart on the spectrum in the world order. They are very different in what they do.

It is no longer good enough for us to trust just our security services to look after the protection of our nation. Every board, every management structure and every CEO across this nation is being put under increasing pressure as countries look to protect their own interests. Australia is no different. If we are not out there with a strong country, with strong systems and with strong companies that can stand up to this, we can lose everything we have. We found out that more than half of the CCTV cameras around military bases could be controlled by other people, and they had to be replaced. We're talking about cars being able to be turned off. We're seeing all throughout the world that we're not masters of our own domain.

All I am asking is for a referral to the committee to examine this in depth over time. I'm not being alarmist. I'm not saying we have to change this. I'm not going out there beating the doors. We've seen the commitment by this government. They have gone silent lately about the sale of the Port of Darwin and the concerns around that.

If we are so concerned about an infrastructure piece that the government is moving forward with the compulsory disposal of that—although it has gone quiet; I'm wondering whether that's still on the agenda—why are we not concerned by other things, not necessarily owned by the same country but owned by other organisations? Is it in our interests to have our water, in our productive use, owned by super funds of other nations? Is it good to have our electricity distribution owned by corporations of other nations?

As I said, we welcome the investment, but if the control is being increased and the fingers are reaching down, simply because the world has turned into a different world than it was 10 years ago, then we need to be ready for it. And if we are not examining that, we run the exact risk we're running now on the fuel supply. If we are not prepared for the changes and for things to happen when they happen, we'll be playing catch-up—just as we are on oil, just as we are on power, and just as we were during COVID on our medicine and safety supply chains. We can go one of two ways. We can say, 'She'll be right,' and do nothing, or we can actually start making plans for what we should do and for weaknesses we have.

I like to quote, and I'll quote again from Sun Tzu: 'Prevention of defeat lies in oneself.' We have no-one to blame for being weak except ourselves. And if we say no to this, if we say, 'Nothing to see here; we'll move it aside'—I'm not out there ringing alarm bells; it is a safety check, an audit, a check-up on Australia's sovereignty, on the strength of our country, the strength of our services—and if something happens, that is on us. I am sick of sitting in a parliament, sitting in an organisation where things happen and we blame other people: the price of this is on Ukraine; the price of that is on the Middle East. For any action, we always blame someone else. It is time to take responsibility and own these things ourselves.

If we say no—and I can count, and I think the chances are that we will say no to this referral today—the next thing that happens because of foreign influence is on this parliament. It's not on any country or any organisation that tends to do it. We've already had all sorts of fingers reaching down, for the first time last year, and the government was strong on this—the IRGC involvement in attacks in Australia. We are seeing governments and organisations doing more, being more active, having more influence in Australia. So it will be on the government, it will be on those who vote against this, if we do nothing and things happen to our infrastructure. So I urge the Senate to support it. It is not an alarm bell. I have been approached, as I said before, by people on boards and CEOs of organisations in this country who are concerned and who have reached out to agencies of this government for assistance. That is the level of concern they have. They are reaching out to agencies, between our security organisation and our Home Affairs, to gather assistance, to get the resources for this, because it has never happened before and they aren't comfortable.

I thank the Senate for their time. I urge their support. All I want is an Australian community that can stand on its own when times get tough, because we're increasingly finding that we don't know who we can trust.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of my good colleague Senator Cadell and the senator's motion to refer to the Economics References Committee an inquiry into the impact of foreign influence in Australia's critical infrastructure sectors. Australia's critical infrastructure is not just an economic asset. It is the backbone of our national sovereignty. It underpins our energy security, water security, communications, supply chains and the functioning of everyday Australian life. In an increasingly uncertain world, this parliament has a clear responsibility, and that is to protect Australians from those who would do us harm. We must ask whether our existing safeguards are strong enough, and we must be honest about the risks we face. This Labor government has its head in the sand on national security, and Australians are paying the price.

We live in a time of heightened strategic circumstances: war in Europe, conflict and tension in our region, pandemics that shut borders that cripple supply chains, and natural disasters that strain energy, transport and communication systems. These events have taught us one clear lesson: resilience cannot be piecemeal; it must be whole of government and it must be built into our economy, our infrastructure and our decision-making. A resilient nation needs an advanced and diverse economy that can withstand shocks, one that can keep food moving, power flowing and communications running when it matters most. Critical infrastructure assets are fundamentally different from ordinary investments. Sovereign ownership and oversight of these assets are key to our resilience. That is why these assets require a higher level of scrutiny and that is what this inquiry would do.

It is against our national economic security to vote against this motion. Let that be a message for the Australians watching. Those acting on your interest will be on one side of the chamber and those against it, the other. Australia has benefited greatly from productive international investment and this inquiry is not about opposing that. Foreign investment has helped build our economy but it must align with Australia's long-term national interest. According to ASIO's annual threat assessment, foreign interference and espionage are now at unprecedented levels. Corporate espionage is at an all-time high, with foreign adversaries attempting to infiltrate our institutions and industries at unprecedented levels. They have surpassed terrorism as Australia's principal security concerns. That is a reality we cannot ignore. Australians expect us in this and the other place to be proactive, not complacent. Political or economic convenience cannot come ahead of national security, and I implore those opposite to act in the interests of Australians, not our adversaries. When it comes to food production, freight, energy and communications, we must legislate defensively and act responsibly. There is no better time for this conversation as we face fuel and fertiliser pressures, global instability and increasing competition for essential resources.

It is a core responsibility of government to protect Australians, and that protection must be across the whole of government, private sector and with industry partnership. To walk away from that responsibility is to abandon the public interest. The coalition understands this. When in government the coalition passed several key pieces of legislation to secure our critical infrastructure. But the work is not done, and the threat environment continues to evolve. That is why we are committed to sovereign resilience, and that is why only the coalition has a portfolio dedicated to this task and why only the coalition has put this inquiry to the Senate. Foreign investment is vital to our economy but, without scrutiny, Australians will be taken advantage of, and that is why I support this motion and ask all other senators to do so too.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the motion as moved by Senator Cadell be agreed to.

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

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 12 August 2026:

The appointment of the next Chair of the Housing Australia Board, with particular reference to:

(a) the outstanding governance issues at Housing Australia;

(b) the performance of Housing Australia;

(c) the key role of the Chair in leading an agency that is responsible for policies that shape the housing market, allocate billions of taxpayer funds and influence whether Australians can achieve home ownership; and

(d) the Senate's interest in ensuring the appointment of properly suited candidate with the commensurate skills, experience and capacity.

In moving this motion, I make the point that, in Housing Australia, the government have established a behemoth. It is an agency which is a property developer, an insurer, an issuer of bonds and a runner of various programs like Help to Buy. It is an enormous agency inside this Commonwealth government, and in the main, it is undertaking the activities that would usually be run by the private sector. It is spending literally billions of dollars of taxpayer funds, and it will do even more things over the next few years, as per the government's policy.

Even though we don't agree with having this agency doing these things, we stand for integrity in public finances and proper administration of public programs. Those would be reasonable things for an opposition to pursue. I would say that the dysfunction at Housing Australia has totally destroyed its capacity to actually undertake the functions that have been given to it by this parliament—as I say, insurer, property developer, issuer of bonds and programs. All of those things are very expensive, very significant programs. But, from the board down, the agency is very sick. It has been a very sick agency.

Through the estimates process, we have uncovered secret Treasury reports into the conduct of the board, which the government initially attempted to cover up. We have discovered that there is a 25 per cent turnover of staff in the agency, and we have discovered that there has been an observer appointed to the board by the Minister for Housing, Clare O'Neil. The director-general of the housing group of the Department of the Treasury sits in board meetings of Housing Australia. So you've got the plastic tree, you've got the airless room with maybe a couple of windows, and then you've got the Treasury official sitting in there with all the appointees, some of whom are former Labor Party politicians. Others are people who formerly worked in the property industry. That's the Housing Australia board, and they've got to be supervised by Minister O'Neil's delegate because they can't be trusted. The reason they can't be trusted is that they're wasting millions of dollars.

So far, the performance of the agency has been such that it has not been able to build houses, and the Housing Australia Future Fund is at risk, according to the government's own budget papers. The reason it is at risk is that, after 2½ years and $10 billion, it hasn't built any houses, and we get different answers at estimates as to whether it has built zero—is it on a duck?—or whether it has built 10 or whether it has built 600. Every time we ask a question, we get a different answer. The most criminal element of all of this, though, is that the agency, having failed to build houses, has been buying houses. They call them turnkey acquisitions, where they buy off a plan or they buy from developers who are building properties that Australians could actually own. Minister Gallagher said at estimates about a year and a half ago, 'The Housing Australia Future Fund has acquired and converted 340 of these properties.' The next time we had Senate estimates, Minister Gallagher had been moved on from her duties and we had Minister Ayres, who the government appointed to be a bit of a bulldozer. He had a different set of talking points. He tried to walk back and eat the words of good Minister Gallagher, who had done nothing wrong. All that good Minister Gallagher had done was read the papers delivered to her by her office which said that the Housing Australia Future Fund had acquired and converted 340 houses. Her crime was being honest. Then we had Minister Ayres come in and obfuscate with an entirely different set of talking points and different Treasury officials trying to explain that, in fact, what Minister Gallagher had said was wrong and that it wasn't doing that at all. But unfortunately these efforts have run aground because the budget has made it very clear that the Treasury actually does regard this as an at-risk program.

Fancy in a housing crisis having the idea that you have constrained supply, so you have gone from 200,000 houses a year under the last government down to 170,000 houses a year overall. The government's housing fund is now buying houses that Australians could own and is now trying to cover it up when the parliament tries to inquire into whether that's a good idea. Who would believe the government housing scheme would be on the demand side and actually making the problem worse? It's actually quite hard to believe. But, of course, the reason they're doing this is that they're worried about their numbers. After 2½ years, most people would think that with $10 billion you could build something.

Then you look at the spending commitments they have made in round 1 of the HAFF. In some cases, they are spending up to $1.5 million per dwelling. The average cost of a new build in this country is half a million dollars. They're paying three times the price the average homebuilder would be charging to build a new home. Extraordinary! There's an average of about $750,000 across HAFF round 1. This is an agency which is also committing a large amount of taxpayer funds to very expensive builds. So we have asked for all the information to be provided on how much money is being promised in HAFF round 1, round 2 and round 3 and what the progress is on building. It's very hard to get to the bottom of how many have actually been progressed and how many have actually been completed. We imagine that, at some stage, the $10 billion will actually result in a few thousand houses being built. We imagine that may be the case.

The government promised, as we heard today from Minister Wong, that this thing will build 55,000 homes with $10 billion. But, so far, after 2½ years, it hasn't been able to do anything like that. In the long run, the main game in housing is surely going to be getting the builders, the developers and the tradies to build the private housing system. Of course there is a role for social and affordable housing. This has traditionally been the preserve of the states. States have historically built public housing. Maybe there's an argument that there should be more of that. Maybe there's an argument that you should have more social housing supported by state governments with maybe the federal government standing behind it in some way. But the idea that the federal government would establish this behemoth housing fund and it would try and go around to get good value for taxpayers' money and build houses has now been disproven after 2½ years. Once we get to October, it will be three years. I think that has been disproven.

My fear is that this agency has been more worried about how it works out its availability payments and its subsidies to institutional investors than it has been about getting a good deal for taxpayers. That is my fear. In the case of HAFF round 1, the biggest beneficiary, with over $2 billion, is the Assemble group, which is owned by the super funds. This is an organisation which, with its owners AustralianSuper, HESTA and CBUS, had lobbied the government and Dr Chalmers about having a housing future fund that would subsidise the returns for investors, because they of course want to be involved with receiving taxpayer funds. It's not good enough for them to open the door every day and have 12 per cent of people's wages and salaries fall in. They also want to find ways to capture more money from the Australian people via the taxman, via the federal government. And so they devised a scheme which the Housing Australia Future Fund is now delivering, where they open the door and they get huge subsidies from the housing fund to build build-to-rent houses that Australians will never own. They will build apartment blocks that Australians will never own, courtesy of the taxpayer allowing the funds to get to scale in the first place with management contributions then through these contracts through Housing Australia.

My great fear, as I said, is that the agency has been much more focused on supporting the subsidies for institutional investors than it has been on supporting the taxpayer getting the best value for money. The Australian National Audit Office is about to finish its performance audit into this agency. This is going to be a very important audit. This audit, I am sure, is going to highlight that taxpayers have not received value for money when it has come to this program, because how could it be the case that you could be paying two or three times the market rate for a new house? How could that be justified? I don't see how there's any explanation for that. So that is going to be a significant governance concern for the agency going forward.

The chair, of course, is going to be appointed by the executive. We understand that. In Australia, we don't have confirmation hearings for this type of appointment. But I think it's only reasonable that we consider the type of skills and the capability of the people that will be on the board of this agency. It's not good enough to have more Labor mates and the unions dumped onto this board that's going to be spending tens of billions of dollars. We have to have in this program someone who has brains and some experience—someone who's going to screw down the money and get the best value for taxpayers. Whether we agree with these programs or not, we are all Australians. We all want to see the Australian taxpayers get the best possible value for money.

If we have another situation where the board is descending into infighting and maladministration, this program will stagger on. There will be bad deals made. There will be more conflicts of interest. If you were to do an internal audit of the organisation, the first recommendation would be, 'Why the hell do you have a Treasury official sitting in your meetings when you're dishing out billions of dollars?' particularly in relation to the conflicts of interest which may be there in relation to round 1 of the HAFF, where the biggest beneficiary is the super funds which have extensive links to the government. We know that Dr Chalmers used public interest immunity claims to cover up the representations he received from CBUS. I have no idea whether that has to do with his association with Mr Swan or someone else, but the fact is that he used the public interest immunity claims system to protect information that should have been tabled in the Senate through the FOI process and through the OPD process. The Information Commissioner through that out. The Information Commissioner said, 'I've reviewed this claim, and my judgement is that the information that was provided to Dr Chalmers from CBUS about these housing matters is lobbying and should be disclosed.' Thank goodness for the Information Commissioner, because they were able to deal with this as an FOI.

Unfortunately, in the Senate, when we try to seek information through orders for production, we just get stymied. All we see is obfuscation when we're making genuine inquiries. We've made inquiries in relation to many programs that have been administered by this behemoth. For example, the five per cent deposit scheme is administered by Housing Australia. The Prime Minister said that it would drive up prices by 0.6 per cent over six years. It's resulted in a six per cent increase in prices six months. We are not allowed to see the modelling, the risks and sensitivities that were conducted by the Treasury in relation to these matters. We have tried. We had an attendance yesterday from Minister Ayres, who spent most of his time talking about my appearance rather than dealing with the actual matter at hand. He spent a lot of time trying to accuse me of being insane and enfeebled and all those sorts things, which were all very funny, but these are serious matters.

The coalition and crossbench have been trying for many months to get to the bottom of these things, and that's why we are recommending this inquiry to the Senate. We think someone appointed to chair this agency needs to have the skills and capacity to do the job properly. We want to take submissions and have a hearing where we can force the Treasury to explain their process and actually do our job, which is to try and kick the tyres on the proposed approach going forward for this agency. We don't have the time at estimates to get to the bottom of these things. We need a special inquiry into this particular matter right now before the government makes the appointment.

I think this will help the government make the best possible judgement, because it will shine a light that the government should not just be appointing another former failed politician from Victoria or some other failed state. They should be looking to appoint someone who can actually do the job and get the best possible value for taxpayers. This person needs to be very smart because they are going to be running an insurance company which is giving unlimited guarantees. They are going to be running a massive property developer. They are going to be running the Help to Buy Scheme. They are going to be issuing bonds. They probably need to be smarter than anyone who works in this building. We want the best person, and we recommend this inquiry to the Senate.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support Senator Bragg's reference to the economics committee particularly because Housing Australia, as Senator Bragg said, has billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, but the reality for taxpayers is that it failed to build any houses in the whole of 2025-26. Think about that. This government has set up a housing agency. That sounds like a good thing. They put $10 billion of taxpayer funds in it. That's a lot of money. You would therefore expect that, when we ask simple questions of the government on behalf of the Australian taxpayer about how many houses this fund has actually built, they would be a little surprised to be told that the reality under the Labor government is that in the whole of 2025-2026 this fund failed to build one home.

What's worse is that, in October 2025, the Chair of Housing Australia was forced to resign. Why? She was forced to resign after it was revealed there was a secret 2024 Treasury report into the former chair's alleged conduct . On top of that, you have dysfunction in the agency. The staff are quite literally walking out the door. On top of that, there are workplace safety complaints. What is worse is there's a secret report that nobody was supposed to see. Now the government just wants to quietly appoint the next person to run the whole thing.

This is billions of dollars of taxpayer money with a dysfunctional agency. The government says to us: 'We don't want any questions. We don't want any scrutiny. We just want to hand the keys to the next person and pray to God they do better than the last person.' We're saying no, and that is why Senator Bragg has moved this motion. This is something that does need to be inquired into by a committee—in particular, the role of the chair in leading the agency that is responsible for policies that shape the housing market, because to date, based on the statistics alone, it failed to build any houses in the whole of 2025-2026. It has been a total failure.

The government has put $10 billion into the Housing Australia Future Fund, $10 billion of taxpayer money. They then told the Australian people that this fund will build thousands and thousands and thousands of homes. They were actually very proud of that announcement. They had press conferences; they put out press releases. It was the biggest thing since sliced bread—$10 billion. Yet the reality under Albanese Labor, when you step away from the press conference and step away from the press release, is this: in the entire 2025-26 financial year, how many new homes did it build? Zero, not one, nought. I'm not making it up. That's in the government's own Treasury portfolio budget statement. It's there in black and white.

And right next to the zero, as Senator Bragg articulately put it, it also states in black and white that the target is now at risk. At risk—seriously? It's absolutely at risk, because the agency isn't building any homes, because of what's going on within the agency itself. Staff turnover was more than 25 per cent in one year, with one in four people walking out the door in the 12-month period to August 2025. What is worse is their own staff survey confirmed this. The people who work at this agency are saying to the government and the Australian people: 'The agency is broken. We might have $10 billion of your money and we built no homes in that financial year, but what is worse is we are telling you the agency itself is broken.' It also has four work health and safety cases. What's strange about that? It's a housing bureaucracy. These are not tradies on a building site. They are office workers, and there are four safety complaints. Quite frankly, that tells you about the culture in this place.

Obviously, what's worse is the person who headed up the agency, the chair of Housing Australia, was forced to resign. Why? It came out that the government's treasury department had secretly commissioned a $24,000 report into allegations about the chair's conduct. It was a secret report for 24 grand of taxpayer money to investigate the person who was supposed to be running what is now, as we know, a dysfunctional show. This is the summary: the government spent $24,000 on a secret report investigating the chair of their own housing agency, the chair has gone, the staff are leaving, no homes have been built, and the government want the taxpayer to trust them with the next appointment. Senator Bragg, you're right; it needs to be inquired into, and we need that transparency.

But it actually does get worse. What did the government do when it found all of this out? The government actually has this information. Did they clean up the agency or overhaul the agency? No, they didn't. They sent in a person known as an observer. The bad news, though, for the Australian taxpayer is that nobody has a clue what this observer actually does. We think they sit in a room and observe, but we're not sure what they're observing. But, when a government feels the need to put someone in a room just to watch what a board is doing, quite frankly that tells you everything. This place is either heavily conflicted, deeply dysfunctional or, worse for the Australian taxpayer, both.

That's Housing Australia—billions in, zero homes out in 2025-26, boss forced out, staff fleeing, safety complaints, secret reports, a mystery observer. The government can't even pretend it's working anymore, and that's why I say shame on the government today if they are not supporting Senator Bragg's motion, which does nothing more than demand transparency on behalf of the Australian taxpayer. But, no, they probably won't support this motion.

Senator Bragg has been absolutely right on this, and this is what he said: 'We cannot continue to fund a housing bureaucracy in Canberra that brags about spending billions while building fewer houses. The next head of Housing Australia should have to front up to the Senate and prove they are up to the task before they get the job.' You're absolutely right, Senator Bragg. It is time for transparency. The time for supply is overdue, and it is time to restore the Australian dream of homeownership.

Sadly, these are facts. Senator Bragg and I aren't making this up. This is in the budget paper. This is the reality of the Housing Australia agency. That's why we need transparency.

Let's now put this into context. Sadly, it gets worse for the Australian taxpayer in the context of what the government dropped last night in the budget. If you think Housing Australia is bad, it gets a whole lot worse in the budget. Here's the budget in three words: broken promises everywhere. The Prime Minister promised 50 times that he would not touch negative gearing or capital gains tax. He said that to the Australian people prior to the election, yet on Tuesday night, last night, he did both. He didn't bend the truth. He didn't stretch it. Quite frankly, he snapped it in half and threw it in the bin. Fifty times prior to the election he looked Australians in the eye and he said no. And then last night he broke every one of those 50 promises, and he did it anyway.

Every Australian who bought a property, invested in shares or made a plan for their retirement in the last 12 months did it based on what the Prime Minister told them. Yet the centrepiece of this budget is a $77.2 billion tax hike over the next decade—$77 billion ripped out of the economy. There's a brand new minimum 30 per cent capital gains tax on everything. The 50 per cent discount is gone. If you are a young person and you're investing in crypto, ETFs et cetera, guess what? He's going to tax you. The Prime Minister is now coming after your aspiration, and he is taxing you. There is $77 billion in new taxes over 10 years. That is not reform. That is the biggest broken promise in Australian political history.

Does it even work? Does it fix housing? This is what Mr Albanese wants the Australian people to believe. The answer is pretty obvious. All of the experts were out there today saying, 'No, it makes it worse.' We actually don't even have to guess. The government's own numbers say so. The government today wants to turn its back on what is in black and white in their own budget papers. Their own modelling says these tax changes will mean 35,000 fewer homes over the next decade. Not more—fewer. For those listening in to this broadcast, go to page 158 of Budget paper No. 1: budget strategy and outlook. In the final paragraph it says that over the next decade, the increase in supply is expected to be around 35,000 dwellings fewer compared to no tax policy change. That is what is said in the government's budget papers. On what planet does a government that wants to increase housing supply bring in a tax that it had promised 50 times before the election it wouldn't and that its own budget papers state is going to have an impact of 35,000 fewer houses? Quite frankly, it's a government that doesn't know what it's doing.

What did Australians get out of this budget when it comes to housing? Unfortunately, it gets worse, because, as Senator Bragg knows, housing is actually directly linked to migration. Over two terms, the Albanese Labor government will have presided over the arrival of two million people to Australia. Think about that for a moment, Australia. I can tell you that this government is not taking the impact into consideration. This is not a migration intake. This is a transformation of this nation, undertaken without a plan, without the infrastructure to support it and without the honest conversation that the Australian people deserved. There are no new cities, and no serious housing targets have been met. There is no credible answer as to where these Australians are going to live. You have Australians that today woke up in their car. They slept in a car park with their family overnight, and do you know what this government says to them? 'Too bad, so sad. We're going to prioritise bringing in two million additional people to this country over you.' That is an absolute disgrace.

The result of this government losing control of migration is plain to see in every capital city, and the data doesn't lie. Australia, this is what is happening because of the Albanese government. Rents have surged. Don't take my word for it. If you're a renter, you know you can't afford to pay your rent. Vacancy rates have collapsed. Young Australians who did everything right—saved, worked, waited—are now being priced out of the market not by bad luck but by deliberate policy decisions of the Albanese government. This is a simple economic fact. When you run the largest migration intake into the tightest housing market, guess what happens? There are less homes for Australians, and this government doesn't care. It is continuing to bring in more people. That is an absolute disgrace.

We have people in Australia waking up in cars every single morning, and the government laughs at them and says in its published migration statistics, 'We're moving full steam ahead and bringing in more people.' You've got broken promises, higher taxes, more debt, lower living standards and fewer homes. The Australian people can see it, and they won't forget it.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the matter be referred to the Economics References Committee. A division is required. It being after 6.30 pm, we will defer that division until tomorrow.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not believe that I've spoken on this, and I would be absolutely delighted to speak on this reference. Again, I commend Senator Bragg for the work that he is doing as the shadow minister for housing. Senator Bragg, like everybody in the coalition, actually wants more houses to be built in Australia. Sadly, under this government, as I said, when you look at the Housing Australia fund, it has got billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, but it failed to build any houses in the whole year of 2025-26. How can a government get up every day and tell the Australian people that they have a plan for housing, that they have a plan to make their lives better, when the actual reality of the lived experience of Australian people is that, under this government, it just doesn't matter how hard they try. They can't get into the housing market.

But what's worse is that they have to live with the fact that this is a government that makes a huge announcement when it comes to the Housing Australia Future Fund—as I said, $10 billion of taxpayers' money was put into the Housing Australia Future Fund. They told the Australian people. They stood up proudly. They fronted the cameras. They issued the press releases. They said: 'Guess what? We're creating this fund, and this fund is going to build tens of thousands of homes.' When you look at the budget papers, the reality of what this government has done with this fund is that, in the financial year of 2025-26, it failed to build any houses. That is an absolute disgrace. As I said in a previous speech, what is worse now is what is next to that figure of zero. This is not me making it up and this is not Senator Bragg making it up but in the government's own Treasury portfolio budget statement—it is there in black and white, right next to the big zero for number of houses built—says the target is now at risk. Let's translate to plain English for people. What that actually means is this: the government have basically sold you a pup. They have completely misled you. They have taken $10 billion of your hard-earned money and they have put it into what is now a dysfunctional agency with little-to-no transparency. The government themselves have had to send in an observer to watch the board and what they do. But that doesn't change the fact, does it, that they made an announcement that this fund was going to build tens of thousands of homes, yet in 2025-26, in that financial year, an entire year, how many new homes did it build? As I said, it is there in black and white—zero.

But what is worse, as I said, to compound this last night, to add insult to injury, despite the Prime Minister looking the Australian people in the eye and promising 50 times prior to the election that he would not touch negative gearing or capital gains tax, last night he did both. He didn't bend the truth, he didn't stretch it, he snapped it in half and threw it in the bin. Fifty times he looked the Australian people in the eye. In fact, he snapped at journalists when they dared ask him the question: 'Prime Minister, if you are re-elected, will there be any changes to negative gearing or capital gains in Australia?' And he snapped at them—the audacity of a journalist asking the Prime Minister such a question—and said 'no'. We are not allowed to say that word in the Senate—it begins with an L, ends in E and has an I in the middle of it—but that is what the reality was, fairly and squarely 50 times over.

But to add insult to injury is what is said at page 158 of the government's own budget paper No. 1. You see, the government are trying to deny this because they don't want Australians to know what the actual reality of the broken promise is. This is the reality—I'm reading it out: '… the increase in supply over the next decade' is 'expected to be … around 35,000 dwellings fewer compared to no tax policy change'. Do you know what that actually means? It means there are going to be 35,000 fewer homes built in Australia as a direct result of what the Prime Minister is running around with his Treasurer today and saying is a great reform in Australia. In black and white, there it is: 35,000 fewer dwellings. How in God's name does a government bring in a policy that puts a stake in the heart of aspiration but, worse, actually has the impact on the ground of 35,000 fewer dwellings? As I said, it is there in black and white in their budget papers—not more homes, fewer homes. They broke their promise to deliver a policy that their own numbers say makes the crisis worse. You literally can't make it up.

And as we know, that was compounded last night. Again, there in black and white in the budget papers for all Australians to see. Over two terms, the Albanese Labor government will have presided over the arrival of an additional two million people to Australia—two million people. I want everybody in this chamber to actually think about that. How many times are you actually creating Canberra? If you're bringing in two million people, how many more Canberras has this government created over its time in office? But do you know what the problem is? It actually hasn't created Canberra, because Canberra has infrastructure. There is no infrastructure associated with these additional two million people.

This is not a migration intake. This is a transformation of our fantastic nation of Australia. It has been undertaken by Albanese Labor, despite Australians begging him to slow down the mass migration into this country and begging him for a plan to deal with mass migration coming into this country. And he laughs at them. He makes announcements—'I'm going to build more houses'—and then his own budget papers show that, actually, the government's tax policy and what it's just done is going to build 35,000 fewer.

He says, 'I've taken $10 billion of taxpayers money and I've put it into the Housing Australia Future Fund and it's going to build tens of thousands of homes.' Again, their budget papers show in black and white that, for 2025-26, the numbers of homes built by this agency was zero. Two million people came in without a plan, without the infrastructure to support them and, what is worse, without an honest conversation with the Australian people. Quite frankly, the Australian people deserve nothing less than credible answers to the two questions they're now asking. Two million people have come into this country over the two terms of the Albanese Labor government. The first question the Australian people ask is: where are you going to put them? There has been no answer to that question.

But what is worse is this. This is for those living in their cars. This morning, with your family, you woke up in your car in a car park, whether it was in a suburb of Western Australia, a suburb of Sydney, a suburb of Melbourne—anywhere in Australia. You used to live in a house, but your cost of living got so high under Mr Albanese that, sadly, those 15 interest rate rises meant you just couldn't afford your mortgage anymore. Your wages were going backwards. Inflation was killing the family budget every time you went into the shops. So you had to move your family out of your house and into your car.

The bad news is I don't have an answer as to where you're going to live, because under Mr Albanese the houses are not there. But I can tell you that, tomorrow night, in the budget in reply, there will be an answer. The numbers are too high and—we have said it plainly—they must come down. We must put housing Australians front and centre of any government policy. The numbers must come down. When you bring in two million people over two terms in government and you do not have the housing supply to house those immigrants, let alone the Australians who are waking up in their cars every day, you have to acknowledge that the numbers must come down.

But, sadly, this is a government that just doesn't care. So the reality for Australians, in black and white in the budget paper, is that if you've had a mortgage, you're about $32,000 worse off per year under this government. But what's worse is what Mr Albanese is saying to younger Australians. He's trying to tell them that this is a budget for them. Sadly, the reality is that it's actually just not. What this government did last night was intergenerational fraud. They have pitted young kids against their parents. They have said, 'Your parents were able to get a house, but we're going to make sure that you can't.' They have pulled the ladder up on every young Australian who is trying to get ahead. You can't buy a home, young Australians. You know that. Everybody knows that.

You're doing the responsible thing. You're saving money, you're putting money into shares, you're putting money into ETFs, you're putting money into crypto and you're putting money into a managed fund. You're trying to build something for yourself because the housing market under Mr Albanese has shut you out, and guess what? This government's policy last night—its broken promises on negative gearing and capital gains—has just whacked you for it, because the reality is that the capital gains changes don't just hit property. Don't believe the 'intergenerational' argument. This is intergenerational fraud. The capital gains changes don't just hit property. They hit everything—everything you own, every investment that you have made.

You're saving and you're putting money into shares, ETFs, crypto or a managed fund. As I said, you are trying to do the right thing to get ahead under this government. And what did the government do to you last night? They whacked you. They whacked you with their changes to capital gains. Go and do your research. Go and talk to an accountant, because the busiest people in Australia are shortly going to be the accountants, quite frankly, trying to work out what in God's name is going on because of the Albanese government's budget. But capital gains changes don't just hit property. They hit everything. Every single asset you own and every investment that you have made is now going to be whacked with the Albanese government's broken promises.

We'll go back to where we started, back to Housing Australia. The agency's a wreck. Zero homes have been built. Billions have been wasted. The boss was forced out over a secret report. A quarter of the staff are gone. There are workplace safety complaints. A government observer is on the board because the government don't actually trust their own agency. The government's housing target—well, guess what? The budget papers now say it's at risk. But, worse than that, the Prime Minister, who looked all of the Australian people in the eye prior to the election and said, over 50 times, that he wouldn't make any changes to capital gains or negative gearing, did that last night. This is a government that has spent billions, built nothing, broken every promise and, sadly for Australians, made the housing crisis worse.

Australians deserve a government that builds homes, not bureaucracy; that keeps its promises and doesn't break them; that rewards hard work and doesn't punish it; and that treats your money like it matters, because it does. That's the point of this motion.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Bragg to refer a matter to the Economics References Committee be agreed to. A division having been called and it being after 6.30, we will proceed to that division tomorrow.

Debate adjourned.