Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

What a sad contribution from the member opposite. Here they are, opposing something that was a clear commitment that we made at the election—a clear commitment announced at our campaign launch and a key part of what is a comprehensive housing agenda that we have, building more homes through our National Housing Accord Facility; working with states and territories to speed up approvals and boost supply, which is they key; investing in public housing, something those opposite will never do; new construction and renovation; strengthening renters' rights; and the Help to Buy plan, of course, an important component about helping families buy a home of their own, about investing in the dreams of Australian families, which have been so important as part of the Australian story. They are people who have worked hard, saved up and made sacrifices but need a little extra help getting a deposit together and getting the start that they need. This is consistent with our approach. We want people to earn more, and that's why we've seen real wages lift in 2023—much earlier than Treasury said that they would. That's why we want people to keep more of what they earn. Our tax cuts, aimed squarely as low- and middle-income workers, will do that as well.

Help to Buy is a pretty simple scheme. It's one that, for the member opposite to be informed, operates effectively not just in places like Western Australia but, indeed, in other markets around the world. What it will mean is that our government steps up and takes a share of the equity. It opens the door to homeownership to tens of thousands of hardworking people.

The member asked for detail. Here it is. Under this legislation, if you've saved two per cent of your deposit—he doesn't want to stay and listen—the government will contribute up to 40 per cent of the purchase price for a new home, thereby encouraging construction, or 30 per cent for an existing home. It's a pretty simple proposal. Then, down the track, the purchaser can buy back, off the government, full ownership of their home.

It is a pretty simple system that works very effectively, but what it does, obviously, is reduce the amount that people need for a deposit and then reduce the amount of their payments. So, if a home is worth half a million dollars, and 40 per cent of that, $200,000, is equity from the government, then you're paying off a loan based upon $300,000 of borrowing, rather than the $500,000. I know that shouldn't be too hard for those opposite to work out, but they actually don't want government to pay a role in public housing. They don't want government to play a role in homeownership either.

We've heard a lot of talk from the Liberals in recent weeks about aspiration. We know, from the tax debate, that their idea of aspiration is just people at the top end. Their idea is that people who are working, low- and middle-income earners, aren't aspirational; they should just know their place in life and just stay there. That's not our approach. Our approach is to open up those doors of opportunity, and that's what this is about. But here, of course, we have a new 'no-alition' between the Liberals and the Greens political party. It's extraordinary.

Owning a home is about a sense of security, confidence, stability and belonging—a foundation on which you can build a better future for yourself and your family. And every member from the Labor Party of this House is proud to vote for this legislation. It's another positive step in our plan to increase homeownership.

This is what people have said, though, about this. The Leader of the Opposition, of course, has said that it's 'not liberating, it's modern collectivism'. This is another example of the creeping collectivism going across policies. But this is what David Crisafulli, the Queensland LNP leader, said in November 2020:

We will prioritise building an incentive framework to support home ownership, examining areas including first home-owner grant and shared responsibility schemes.

Jeremy Rockliff, the Liberal Premier, spoke about his successful MyHome shared-equity program, which helps Tasmanians build or purchase a property. Dominic Perrottet, the former New South Wales Liberal Premier, said:

Key workers, single parents and older singles will be able to have the security of homeownership … on the Government's equity share in a property.

Right across the board. Matt Kean, the former New South Wales Liberal Treasurer, said this shared-equity scheme 'will help those facing significant barriers to homeownership buy their own place sooner'.

The former South Australian Liberal Treasurer, Rob Lucas, said, 'We announced HomeStart shared-equity starter loans, and we expanded on that again.' Right across the board. Mia Davies, the former Leader of the Opposition over in WA, said this: 'I would also point out that, in 2010, it was a Liberal-National government leading the way nationally with shared equity.' Right across the board.

What did the Liberals say about their policy of raiding super? Malcolm Turnbull, on 12 March 2015, said it was:

… a thoroughly bad idea … That is not what the superannuation system is designed to achieve.

The current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, said on 13 April 2017: 'I think Malcolm Turnbull has got it right.' Those are words that he didn't often say! He said, 'It's not good policy and I agree with him. Then Sussan Ley, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in 2017 said:

Young people need their super for retirement, not to try to take pressure off an urban housing bubble …

Michael Sukkar, the member for Deakin, the current Liberal spokesperson, in 2017 said:

If all a government does is try to pump further liquidity into the residential housing market, inevitably all you do is push up housing prices.

Mathias Cormann, in 2014, when he was the finance minister of the Liberal Party, said:

Increasing the amount of money going into real estate by facilitating access to super savings pre-retirement will not improve housing affordability.

The truth is that they are all over the shop. They don't even historically support any of the things that they are putting forward now.

But it's not just the Liberals. If it were just the Liberals without their 'noalition' partner the Greens, it could go through the Senate. There's been a lot of talk about policy. Here's what the Greens took to the last election and what they have a mandate for. This is from their 2022 election platform:

In a property market rigged for investors, buying a home has become out of reach for an entire generation. This is why the Greens will establish a Shared Equity Ownership Scheme …

Newsflash for the Greens: they are not in a position to establish anything because they are not the government. All they're in a position to do is to vote for this government's proposal which is completely in accord with their policy. But their housing spokesperson, the member for Griffith, went on Insiders a couple of weeks ago and said: 'We have enough homes for people to live in.' So the problem's solved! Don't worry about supply. It's just absolutely extraordinary. When it comes to the proposal, one of the things that the member for Griffith has said in changing his rhetoric is:

You shouldn't have to win a lottery to have a secure home.

That was in saying this doesn't apply to enough people. But his own website says: 'An example of the Greens' vision for housing in Brisbane is 2,000 homes available to any Brisbane resident and assigned by lottery.' I kid you not.

That is beaten by the Leader of the Greens. They're opposing our investment in public housing. They opposed the Housing Australia Future Fund for so long. On public housing, when we announced the first Social Housing Accelerator program with former premier Daniel Andrews in Carlton, replacing 196 derelict, vacant public housing units with 231 new ones, the $2 billion that we announced in June, the Victorian Greens opposed the plan. They called it the end of public housing in the state. So building more public housing in the state of Victoria was a bad thing, according to them. The member for Melbourne told the House:

North Melbourne's and Carlton's towers will be the first to go. People will be kicked out of their homes within the next few years. It is wrong to destroy these vibrant and diverse communities. The people there have a right to a home—a public home.

That sounds okay except that there is no-one there because they're derelict. There are currently no residents in the Carlton towers because they're unlivable because they were built decades ago. What we're doing with our $2 billion is upgrading them into more homes for public housing, with newer residents—many of whom who have had to move out over a period of time because the towers are derelict, just like many of the old towers in Waterloo in Sydney are no longer fit for purpose. This is housing built 50 years ago that is simply not up to scratch. We in the Labor Party believe that people who live in public housing should live in quality public housing, and that is what our $2 billion is about. The Greens, instead, called for the derelict, vacant apartments to just be refurbished, an idea that the CEO of Homes Victoria dismissed as 'putting lipstick on a pig'.

The member for Brisbane, who of course will speak at some stage here as well, is also opposing a build-to-rent project in his electorate that would create 349 apartments. The site is currently a vacant lot. It is 200 metres from a major train station and walking distance from the Brisbane CBD. But, in his letter opposing the development, the member claims:

Brisbane residents are fed up with developers claiming they are addressing the housing crisis by 'increasing supply' …

I'm not sure how he thinks houses, units and apartments are built, but I'll give him a big tip: they require builders and they require investment. Build-to-rent projects are pretty sensible.

The member for Ryan, not to be outdone, is campaigning against a plan to subdivide a chicken farm into 91 new homes. The developer is the Uniting Church. In her letter to Brisbane City Council, claiming that the Uniting Church was not responding to community concerns, it said, 'It would diminish the natural character of the site.' It's a chook farm!

Between the Liberals, with their failure to support aspiration, and the Greens, with their failure to support anything at all—even their own policy in the platform—we have this 'no-alition' that will ensure that the coalition between the Liberals and the Greens, when it comes to opposing anything on housing, is an unholy one. It's one designed to just keep people in their place and not do anything to improve their circumstances. We on this side of the House support increasing housing supply as the key. Part of that is support for our build-to-rent tax incentives for the private sector. Part of that is our direct investment in public housing. Part of that as well is our incentive, particularly with a stronger incentive for new homes to be built, under Help to Buy. This is good policy. It should be going through this parliament. It is extraordinary that this coalition is combining to oppose it. But they'll be held to account for their opposition.

See this speech in context