David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

It is important to place the bill in the context of the government that puts it forward. Of course, no piece of legislation lives in isolation. This is legislation put forward by a government that promised on 97 occasions to reduce the price of electricity by $275, and that's very relevant, because it goes to competence, trustworthiness and integrity. That's very important for the parliament when considering legislation like this, because we know that, on 97 occasions before the election, the Prime Minister talked about electricity prices going down by $275, but after the election it's a lot less than that. It's not $92, $87 or $75; it's not even $12. It is $0, and it's remarkable that that one date of the election could have such a dramatic impact on the Prime Minister's willingness to talk about something. It's very interesting. It goes very much to integrity and competence, and it's reflected in the extraordinary drift and lack of action in this entire policy area under the government.

A small number of people would benefit, based on the government's own press release. It's very difficult for the government to argue that this will make a substantial difference, and the government isn't even actually saying that, to be frank. We know that what Australians aspire to is owning their own home. This is about Australians having a share in a home alongside Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister, sitting there with them. Let's be frank: that is not what Australians aspire to. Australians don't aspire to sitting around the kitchen table discussing their finances with the Prime Minister as a co-investor in the home.

On the issue of competence, there are so many unanswered questions about this bill. Again, it's great that the minister is here, because I'd invite her to analytically go through these questions. It may be that the minister has the answers but for whatever reason hasn't provided them to the Australian people. I'd encourage the minister to address these questions if she is going to speak on the bill. What is the scheme's eligibility criteria? What happens if you make improvements to your home under this scheme? Will you have to send the government an invoice? Does the government participate in the cost of that renovation, or do you pay 100 per cent? It's a very reasonable question, because that will arise every day of the week. What happens if your income goes above the eligibility rate of $90,000 for an individual or $120,000 for a couple? What will the government do in that case? Will the government force the sale of your home? Will the ATO be auditing incomes to ensure that people don't go over those thresholds? One of the few things that the government has specified in relation to this legislation is the eligibility threshold: $90,000 for individuals and $120,000 for couples. What happens if you go over that? Again, I invite the minister to clearly articulate the answers to these questions—they are the sorts of very reasonable questions that Australians are asking.

What are the reporting obligations once somebody enters into one of these shared equity obligations? What happens if you're in this relationship with the government as a co-owner in your home and you fall behind on your mortgage payments? Unfortunately, that happens. There are a lot of people feeling the pressure of the Albanese government's cost-of-living crisis at the moment, and unfortunately some people are falling behind on their mortgage payments. That does happen; that's a fact of life. What happens in this scenario? Does the government force you to sell your home if you get behind in your mortgage payments or does the government step in and contribute more to help ensure that you and the collective group that own this home don't fall behind? It's not clear at all from the legislation. Again, it may be information that's available. It may be that the minister knows the answer to these questions—perhaps not; I don't know. But, if the minister does know the answer, I would very much encourage her to share that answer with the Australian people. As a society, how would people know whether they would want to participate in this system if they don't know the answers to these most fundamental questions?

How many of the places will be in each state and territory? Who will be participating in the scheme, because obviously you need lenders to lend the money in the first place? There are a lot of questions here. We've got a lot of delay, we've got a flimsy piece of legislation that doesn't say a lot, and we've got a long list of very reasonable questions which are entirely unanswered. That's not a good state of affairs.

We are seeing that so much from this government. We're seeing it in relation to the cost-of-living issues, where the average household is so much worse off than is was in May 2022—because, realistically, who in Australia would say that they are better off than when the Albanese government was elected? I don't think very many people would. Yet the Prime Minister said before the election—I think in relation to this very piece of legislation—that mortgages would be cheaper. Actually, interest rates have gone up on 12 occasions. He said, some 97 times, that electricity prices would be $275 less for a family. That hasn't happened, and he said a whole range of other things that haven't turned out to be true.

It is very difficult to have confidence in this legislation when you contrast it with the performance of the coalition government in this most important area of housing policies, where some 60,000 first home buyers were supported by the coalition through the Home Guarantee Scheme, the home loan deposit scheme, the New Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee. These were really important policies that helped so many people into homes. And the crucial HomeBuilder program, during the depths of COVID, assisted when the building industry was in the gravest of situations. The coalition government developed the HomeBuilder policy, under which some 137,000 applications were made, generating $120 billion of economic activity. It was a hugely important piece of policy by the now shadow minister for housing, demonstrating his depth of expertise in this area. And it worked—it actually happened and it worked. What have we got from this government in housing policy? We've got round tables, consultation committees and press releases, but we don't have any substance, and ultimately what matters is substance.

Again, I invite the minister to address those very reasonable questions about how this policy will work. If the minister says that this is a substantive policy then address the questions. What happens if you make improvements to your home? How do the economics of that work, Minister? Will the government invest in home improvements, or will it only be the homeowner? How does that change the relativity of who owns what percentage of the home? What happens if you start to earn over and above the thresholds? Will the government audit you, and will you become ineligible? These are very, very sensible questions and if the government's answer is, 'Well, we're not going to talk about that,' how can Australians have confidence? These are very simple questions and they're the questions that Australians are asking. It's concerning that we see so much time has passed in this area and we then have a bill which comes forward which is very thin in nature, and it doesn't address these very sensible questions.

In that situation, how can this parliament support such a bill? It is reflective of an entirely failed policy area—housing—by the Albanese government.

See this speech in context