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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

It was an interesting question time. There was a general theme. We went from the widows tax to auction clearances to how we're treating our ageing in this country, because they're all very key issues. It was an interesting response from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong, when she sat there and she argued the point that we're not arguing about the taxes anymore. We've moved on. We're now talking about other aspects of what we're talking about. That is because that argument is one and done. Aspiration in this country is dead, buried and cremated. It's gone. All of Australia knows it. Don't try too hard, because you're not going to get there anymore, so just give up. What this government's tax package is saying is: 'Give up, go home, earn a wage, work for a good corporation, find a nice superannuation owned company, go and work for them under their IR laws and go home, if you can afford one.' We had to get confirmation the other day that we're not taxing car sales anymore, because let's face it—the way homelessness is going, cars will be homes later.

But we went back to the widow tax because what we passed in this chamber was not legislation that was fit for purpose. They've admitted it needs to be changed. The widow and widower tax is as follows. If your partner dies, it creates a capital gains thing where your property that you may have owned together, CGT exempt, is now CGT liable. You may have to pay tax on the capital gains of properties because you become a widow or a widower. It's the same for divorce. Imagine that. Imagine going through an emotional time. You and your partner have split up; everything's terrible. You settle with your partner. You've got custody. You settle your issues and your property, and then the government comes and says, 'And now where's ours? Can we have a bit more of your settlement too?' right at a really exposed time. How fair is that?

This could have been fixed. This could have been fixed at the time had we had the time here. Amendments could have been brought in, and we could have fixed it in one go. And they sit there and say, 'But we passed tax cuts.' It's not hard at all to separate the two and move the tax cuts through, which we would have supported. We said we'd support and we wanted to support tax cuts and the working people tax offset, but they wanted to link it so they could hold it over your head and say: 'Pay this tax. We're putting all these changes together with the tax cuts.' They were picking your pocket when they gave you a dollar. It is what they are good at. So we weren't talking about the tax. They say we moved on because that is done. Australia is done for that. Pack it up and work for the man.

When we come to that, it came to similar questions when we were talking about aged care at the end. Remember we were talking about that and we were saying, 'What are you doing about the aged-care rebate for Medicare?' These are aged people who are paying their private health insurance because they want to remain independent. They want their choice. They want to live their lives the way they want to. But this government, again, said, 'No, we're putting money into aged-care beds. We're putting it into health packages,' because they want you to live a life organised by the government, not by yourself. 'Don't have choice to go to your own doctor, your own specialist. Don't pay your health rebate and come back. Live it the way we want to do.' This is control. As I keep coming back to, this is an abusive relationship this government has with its people. It financially controls you. It manipulates you and gets you to do what it wants you to do. Everything is around that.

I come back to the second question asked by Senator Canavan here, the question about auction clearance rates, because we're speed-dating through this. The minister actually admitted, by their own thing, that 260,000 people have taken advantage of the five per cent home deposit scheme. The problem is housing seems to have gone down by about that pace in the last three months. So 260,000 people have no equity, are in greater debt, have done their deposit, have done their dough—backing a government backed scheme. This is what we'll see if the housing market falls.

I get getting young people into housing markets. The way they have gone about it is shambolic. You can't put hundreds of thousands of people into negative equity in their homes. More to the point, every homeowner in Australia is now poorer because the property market is falling. Congratulations! I've never seen an act whereby so many people have paid such high amounts of money for such poor legislation.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I look forward to making my contribution. I will say this: Senator Cadell's passion is unquestionable. I can't remember how many of these sessions I've sat through over the years, but that really was speedy—

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

Thank you, brother!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cadell! You covered every question, so congrats on that one.

I would like to put a different slant on this, if I can, through you, Deputy President. I'd like to look at it through an older man's eyes. I've spent many months—years, the last few years. Everywhere I go, everywhere I speak—it doesn't matter who I speak to, if I'm speaking to punters in the trucking industry, agriculture, construction, shop workers—it doesn't matter, because the common theme here is that I really dread the young ones nowadays trying to get into the housing market. I say that not with political spin or because I want to get a hit on that social media crap—rubbish—that goes around this nation, but I say it from here: I truly, honestly, don't know how the young ones are going to get into the housing market.

I support every option we take to try and make it fairer for them. I want to be really upfront with the people out there who are unfortunately listening to this debate because they probably haven't got anything better to do, the poor devils. I remember when the Howard government came in. I'm not being political, Mr Deputy President. I believe the housing market started going backwards back in those days, but I will say this: I was one of those people who took advantage of those new tax systems to go out there and buy an investment property. It wasn't illegal; that's what we did. But I sit back now—my wife and I have had three investment properties; we don't have three now—and I look at the opportunity that we were given. I had no idea the consequences that we were creating—to see homes since 2020 increase by a figure of, I think, $400,000.

I know Senator Cadell said that, now, everyone who owns an investment property—not in those words, but similar—has now lost money. Well, a $400,000 increase—go back to the early 1980s when my wife and I first decided we wanted to buy a home. Back in those days, the price of a home, roughly, was probably about five times the average yearly wage. Crikey, wouldn't it be nice if that was the case now! I remember that we had to go to the bank manager, cap in hand, with absolutely no assets—none at all—to probably borrow a miserable $80,000 or $90,000. When I say 'miserable', it wasn't miserable back then; it's miserable compared to what you pay nowadays. We were told to go away and come back when we had more of a deposit. I remember the sacrifices that my generation made and those of generations today. You may have had to go and live with the in-laws, or you couldn't go on the holiday. You had to do all of that, but it was a small price to pay because it was only for a couple of years that we did it. Then we had the fortune of being able to get that loan and go buy our own homes.

Seriously, the debate in this chamber, the debate in the other chamber, the debate through the media is really out of whack. It is incomprehensible, the language that's being used. I will say this: I've had a fortunate life. I really have. I'm a proud father and grandfather. But I'll tell you what, as long as I'm in this place and on this planet, I will do anything I can to support any option that gives younger people the opportunity to have the remarkable opportunities that my generation had to get into the housing market. Think of your language. It has consequences.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle, you may well have had a fortunate life, but the Senate's fortunate to have the benefit of your service as well. I want to take note, specifically, of the questions which were asked by Senator Liddle. There was some passion from me and Senator Colbeck, who actually held the portfolio of Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services the last time the coalition was in government. I remember sitting on the other side, listening to the unfair treatment Senator Colbeck had to endure from those who were then sitting in opposition.

Let's put some facts on the table. When Senator Colbeck concluded his service as aged-care minister, the waiting time for every level of home-care package was between 30 and 90 days. It is now 12 months. When Senator Colbeck completed his service as aged-care minister, there were 28,000 older Australians waiting for home-care packages. There are now over 100,000 waiting for assessment and another 100,000 waiting for a home-care package. That is why Senator Colbeck is so passionate about this issue. The reason for my interjection, in relation to the ability of an aged-care home-care package assessor to override this notorious algorithm, is that we have heard, again and again, that this so-called integrated assessment tool and the automated decision-making which they're using to assess the needs of our older Australians is not able to be overridden by the assessor at that point in time. Older Australian are pushed back because of this automated decision-making. There needs to be a look across government at the use of automated decision-making. And I say that, in particular, vulnerable Australians—whether they're older Australians or Australians accessing the NDIS—should not be subject to automated decision-making which leads them to be denied the necessities of life without an actual human being involved in the assessment process. That needs to change. Whoever's in government, it is unacceptable. It's unacceptable that this older Australian went through this telephone assessment and then his family had to plead for a face-to-face assessment. Can you imagine what that's like? I can't imagine what that's like. They've lost their father and their grandfather, and the day after the funeral a letter arrives: 'Congratulations, you've got your home-care package.' Surely we've got to do better than that—seriously.

I have some sympathy for Senator McAllister. She's not the responsible minister. It's Minister Rae in the other place. He's the person who needs to take responsibility for this integrated assessment tool after being told, again and again, that it is unacceptable to a majority of the Australian people that this automated decision-making is being used to make life-or-death decisions in relation to the care of older Australians. And it's unacceptable that we now have 100,000 Australians waiting for assessment and 100,000 Australians who have been assessed waiting to actually get access to the home-care funding package. It is completely unacceptable. Our older Australians deserve better. (Time expired)

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

I will take this opportunity to stand and talk about our proud record of delivering for Australian workers, including delivering a tax cut for every single Australian worker, not just some. We went to the last election with a plan to lower taxes. Those opposite went to the election with a plan to raise taxes. That's the difference between us and them. From tomorrow, 1 July, every worker is getting another tax cut.

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

Order! Senator Scarr?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order on relevance. I thought the debate was taking note of the answers to coalition questions.

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

We do allow a very wide ranging debate during take note of answers. However, I will remind you that this is taking note of answers to coalition questions.

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

President, I am absolutely getting to it. Tomorrow, Australian workers are getting another tax cut. Tomorrow, around three million workers are getting a pay rise. We are very proud of that on this side. That is one of the many ways that we have backed in Australian workers in this country.

On that side of the parliament, you've got senior members of the Liberal Party calling some of those changes 'egregious'. While we are very happy that you are getting tax cuts and you are getting pay rises, they're offended by that. They're offended by you, the Australian worker, getting a pay rise and tax cuts.

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

Order! Senator Collins?

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

Sorry, Deputy President, can we just get clarification as to which coalition question this was?

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

Senator Collins, there was a coalition question on taxation. Wide-ranging debates are allowed at this point in the day. Senator Stewart has the call.

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

There were also plenty of interjections and ministerial responses, too.

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

Senator Stewart, it is not acceptable to take interjections.

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

Sure.

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

But you have the call.

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

I appreciate it. Thank you.

On the topic of housing and first home buyers, which was talked about: we are changing the property investor tax breaks to give first home buyers a chance of getting into their first home—to give first home buyers a fair go. There is not a single person who says that the housing market is not broken. You can speak to a young person who, for such a long time, felt like getting into their own home was completely out of reach for them, and now, for the first time, young Australians have hope—they feel like it is something within their reach. It's not just young people who have concerns about the housing market. It's their parents. It is grandparents who have concerns about their grandchildren being able to get in to the housing market.

If we agree that the system is broken—that it's not working for everyday Australians trying to get into get in to their own home—then we have a responsibility to do something about that. We cannot just sit on the sidelines and allow these things to continue happening.

Since we announced our changes, we have been hearing more and more stories of first home buyers going along to auctions and securing their first home, thanks to Labor's changes. Hopefully, you've seen some of those headlines too. It is a good thing for Australians to feel like owning their own home is within reach, and even better that they are realising that dream for themselves. And this should absolutely be the rule and not the exception.

The other change we've made to help young Australians realise the dream of owning their own home is a change to the rules so that a first home buyer needs only a five per cent deposit. It cuts years off the time that young Australians need to save for a deposit, helping them get into their home sooner. The other thing that we've done to help first home buyers is: we are building 100,000 new homes just for first home buyers, not for property investors.

Lower taxes, higher pay and a fair go for families and first home buyers—those are the real changes that matter to Australians. And they're the real changes we'll keep delivering.

Leah Blyth (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence Infrastructure) | Link to this | Hansard source

There's a reason that they call it 'question time' and not 'answer time', and I think what we've seen today, from the Labor government, is, again, dodging answers to serious questions. The coalition asked serious questions. We asked serious questions for older people here in Australia. We asked serious questions about young people and how they're going to get in to the housing market. And all we got was political spin coming back to us from this Labor government. They do not care about the Australian people. They are more interested in giving us their talking points and their spin on what is happening out there.

But I think Australians know: Australians are doing it tough—Australians that have gone out there and taken the five per cent deposit scheme, who now have negative equity in their homes. Can you imagine the position that these young people are in? They've gone out there, with this harebrained scheme which the Labor government decided was going to be great for everyone. The housing market has cooled, because they've decided to play around with the settings. This is all about an experiment for this Labor government, and what they've done is: they have created negative equity for these young Australians, who are going to struggle. They are going to struggle to afford their mortgages, because we've had—how many interest rate rises have we had under this government? I think we were up to 14 or 15 last time I checked.

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

Fifteen.

Leah Blyth (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence Infrastructure) | Link to this | Hansard source

We're up to 15. So there's negative equity and there have been 15 interest rate rises under this Labor government. It is disgraceful. And then they've come out with this budget. This budget has set to cool the housing market, so we have seen auction clearance rates plummet across the country. That means fewer first home buyers getting into their homes. No-one is bidding for homes anymore. First home buyers are even wanting to stay out of the market because they're just not sure what is going to happen.

Every time this Labor government tries to play with the economy—every time this Labor government experiments on the Australian people—it is disastrous. How does it solve this? This is a government that—rather than having to live within its means like everyday Australians—is not cutting spending. It is not controlling our federal debt. What it is doing is taxing Australians even more: $70 billion in additional taxes for hardworking Australians. That is $70 billion that Australians have to first earn, for the government to come along and take it from them. That's the reality of this government here.

If you're an older Australian in Australia, look out. This government is coming for you, too. There is no-one who is safe from the sticky fingers of this government. If you've saved all your life, worked hard and made sure that you provided for yourself in your retirement—don't worry; this government is going to come and take that from you as well. What it's going to do is say to you: 'If you need some help—if you need an aged-care package—you will literally die waiting for it.' That is the reality under this government. There is no dignity in the way that they are looking after older people in this country. There are hundreds of thousands of older Australians waiting for the dignity of an aged-care package in this country, and it is a disgrace that they are dying waiting for them.

It is an insult that this poor family—who had to beg for their loved one to be assessed for an aged-care package and wait for 10 months, caring for and trying to allow their loved one to age with dignity, only for them to pass away—a couple days after the funeral got a letter saying the aged-care package— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.