Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will look more forthrightly toward you. I recall many occasions on which a man or woman have told me about the circumstances of their marriage ending. It was always the case that one party in the relationship ended up with the house, the significant asset, while one did not. I think it is reasonable to say that the information regarding assets is held by a federal government body such as the Child Support Agency or by the Family Court and it is probably possible to determine who did the best out of some of these matters. With regard to eligibility, I ask the government why there cannot be some flexibility with regard to access for first home buyers or savers—flexibility to consider that some former partners from broken relationships want to get back on their feet and get some assets behind them. I therefore speak today for these forgotten people. I speak for the lady of Polish origin whom I met one day in Ballajura who raised this specific issue with me. I also speak for the lady in Marangaroo, not far from Rawlinson Primary School, who also raised the issue of her friend.

What about some flexibility to help these people get on their feet again? They had a house, they have lost that house and now they have no options for support. The First Home Owner Grant is not there for them and the first home saver account is not there for them either. It seems to me that this is a great opportunity to extend it a little bit. It might be a little difficult, but the facts are there. Somewhere within the bureaucracy we would know what sorts of circumstances they are truly in. It is a good opportunity to help people who are up against it later in life. It would be good to get some help for those people.

On the savings side, which we have been lectured on recently, in tightening up the legislation I would also like the government—and I am not sure if this is covered; I did not find it in the fact sheet—to, when eligibility is determined, take into account homes that are gifted to a person. After all, if you have a house, you have an asset that someone who is struggling to save does not have. You have that advantage, and that should be taken into account.

On the point of withdrawals for a first home purchase I believe that further clarification is required. The holder of the first home saver account clearly has to live in the house for six of the first 12 months. I worry that a person who is a fly in, fly out worker may not be able to achieve compliance on this point. Therefore, I hope that there is some flexibility for those who face these sorts of employment conditions. I have made some commentary on the fact sheet. I recall that the government claims that as many as 500,000 people will benefit from the scheme. I wonder if the beneficiaries are individual account holders. Are their families included in that number?

I want to look further forward on the matter. I want to look beyond savings and at the capacity to pay. The member for Lindsay has raised points in this area. In the end, the size of the deposit will be irrelevant if the capacity to service the eventual home loan is not there. To emphasise that point, I draw on an article in the Australian Financial Review from 8 May this year by Rohan Alexander. Mr Alexander suggests that the result of this scheme will be that families will qualify for loans that they could not ordinarily afford. The point being made is that saving a deposit over four years indicates a certain capacity of the family involved to service the interest on a particular loan amount. Because the 17 per cent government contribution applies only to the raising of the deposit, there should be provision for the eventual loan application to not consider the government’s contribution, as it would otherwise distort the figures regarding how much the family can repay.

Mr Alexander’s next point leads on from there. If the circumstances of these people are degraded—for whatever reason—the number of foreclosures would rise. Given that the government predicts 134,000 fewer jobs in the coming financial year, and possibly more losses in the years to come after that, we can assume that no income in the house would be a significant change in people’s circumstances.

At the end of the day, we still have no acceleration in the release of land by states and no benefits for supply. I call on the government to put the pressure on the states to do so. The sale of Defence land, if that is the plan, is not going to cut through in the end. What we will have with this system is more people with a deposit competing in a competitive market. This is an inflationary risk.

Obviously, we are not going to oppose this bill. There are some areas in which it needs refining. The point that I would make in particular one final time is that all aspects of the problems of housing affordability and the pursuit of the great Australian dream need to be addressed. We must look at what incentives can be put out there for a change in savings. Some people in this country need to change their savings patterns. We need to look at what the federal government can provide in the way of more land. Most of all, what we need to do is get the states to increase the supply of land. We also need to address the issue of state government charges and taxes. At the moment, these are the important points that the government—by the looks of it—are not interested in looking at. Somewhere along the line, they might have to tread on the toes of the state governments, call them to account and ask them why they have not been doing more to address the housing affordability problem.

Being from Perth, I obviously cannot speak for those who live in other cities. Things picked up about five or six years ago. They picked up because there were a lot more people coming into the state. People were immigrating from overseas and from across the country. They were pursuing the mining boom. The amount of land that is out there has not kept up. These are the problems that need to be addressed.

See this speech in context