Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

Before World War II, homeownership in urban areas across Australia was at only 35 per cent—only 35 per cent! After World War II, there was a very big political battle, where the lines dividing the left and the right of Australian politics came to the fore around the issue of how to deal with a shortage of houses in Australia.

Since that very time, this issue has been a defining one between the coalition—the Liberals and Nationals—and Labor and the Greens. It goes to a difference in values and vision. The values from the left reflect a belief in big government—that government knows best; it's all about the big state and big government. The belief from those on the right is that it's about the individual—it's about the individual Australian. It's a vision for the future from the left—from Labor and the Greens—of a powerful central government that can control people's lives, a government that can be involved in everything you do. The vision of the nation from the coalition is where we unleash the potential of the individual and we back aspiration.

Robert Menzies spoke about this. Robert Menzies was the one who turned what was then a criticism from Labor about so-called 'little capitalists' around and said: 'I want to see little capitalists. I want to see Australians own their homes.' By 1966, that figure of homeownership in urban areas of Australia was no longer 35 per cent, it was 72 per cent. It went from 35 to 72 per cent because the values and the vision of Robert Menzies said that homeownership and aspiration are what counts. He talked about the importance of the home, that natural instinct of family, and that homeownership is an outward expression of self reliance and independence. But here we are today in 2024 with the same differences in values and vision defining the Albanese government and the Dutton led coalition.

In only our last term as a coalition government we delivered against our values. What we saw was a track record of homeownership. Over the last three years of the coalition government, we saw housing policies that supported more than 300,000 Australians to purchase a home. It is a track record, dare I say, that Robert Menzies would've been proud of and a recognition that Australians deserve to have their aspirations delivered upon. That is why the coalition supported almost 60,000 first home buyers. I've met some of those buyers, and they talk about the pride of getting a home when they found it so difficult to do so.

The speed at which the then minister was able to implement that scheme was quite extraordinary, and it differed enormously from the slow process of the Albanese government. Seriously—they promised that this scheme, which we debate today, was going to be introduced on 1 January last year. That's 2023. It's now 2024, and we're still debating it. You'd think that everybody out there has a home. Don't worry about it. We are in the midst of not just a cost-of-living crisis but a housing crisis in this country. Every single candidate of the Labor Party went to the last election looking Australians in the eye and guaranteeing them that this scheme would be up and running because they had the answers. But here we have a long delay, and we talk about it now.

Of course, when it comes to Labor's shared-equity scheme, as they have presented it, I ask you this question: do Australians want that level of government ownership in their homes? When you go home after a long day at work and you go to your fridge, you might get out a little drink. Maybe you sit down with your partner and play with the kids. Do you really want the Prime Minister sitting there at the kitchen bench? Do you want to know that, even though he may not be there in person, he owns so much of your place? What happens when, with your own hard effort and money, you pay for an upgrade of your property? You put in that new kitchen after sweating for months to earn enough cash to pay for a refurbishment. When you go to sell that house, which you can sell for a higher price, there the Prime Minister sits with his hand out saying: 'Cough it up. Give us some of that additional equity that you as the homeowner earnt.' How's that going to be reconciled? Why on earth does the Labor Party truly believe that the everyday Australian wants the Prime Minister owning so much of their own home? It is a disincentive to their aspiration and a disincentive for them to continue to invest.

There are questions that this minister continues to refuse to answer. It's become the modus operandi for this government to give one-page policies and have no idea how to answer some simple questions. What are the criteria to be eligible? They cannot answer that question. Will the ATO be auditing incomes to ensure they don't earn a cent over the required threshold? If you enter into one of these shared-equity arrangements, what are your reporting obligations? The government hasn't thought about that. What happens if housing prices fall, and you are behind on your mortgage payments? Will the government force you out of your house? Will you have to sell it for less than what you had paid for it? These are not minor footnotes of a contract. These go to the certainty a family have when they want to buy a home. If you do not know whether or not the government's going to take a piece of the action should the value of your home increase, how is this scheme good for you? If you do not know if you are going to be forced to sell your home if you fall back on payments, how is that good for you?

If the government had done its homework, it would have recognised that today, in a hyperinflationary environment, this is not the sort of scheme that is going to improve life for everyday Australians struggling to meet the cost of living. If only they had looked at a similar scheme in the United Kingdom they would have realised that that scheme inflated prices. Prices went up. At a time when those searching for a home are needing to see prices come down, this government fails to learn the lessons from our peer nations, lessons that would have told them that this scheme will only drive prices higher.

Clearly, too, the government has not learned from within Australia, from those jurisdictions that already offer a shared-equity scheme, jurisdictions that have seen the take-up of such schemes fall short of targets. Why? Because the scheme itself is so questionable. There are too many details here that put a big question mark over their so-called Help to Buy Bill. This is really just another big government bill. This is a government that refuses to acknowledge the importance of Middle Australians at a time when they are doing it tough. They are a government that went to the election and assured Australians life would be better under them and no Australian would be left behind.

Their promises across multiple portfolios have been broken. Australians are now paying mortgages well over $20,000 a year more than what they did before Labor got to government. Labor looked Australians in the eye and promised them cheaper electricity prices, with a $275 reduction in household power bills. In some parts of Australia, power bills have already gone up by $1,000. But the government assures Australians it knows best. If you can consolidate more power in Canberra, government will tell you what to do.

That is why they have introduced this new family car tax. They want to tell Australians what cars they need to buy. You will see some models increase prices by up to $25,000. 'But wait; there's more,' says the government. It says, 'We are now going to legislate to have a Help to Buy scheme, a shared-equity scheme, where government will take an inordinate degree of equity in your own home.' It comes back to the core values of the Labor Party versus the Liberal Party, the Left versus the Right. There has been no instance since this Albanese government has come to power where the government has sought to empower the individual, the family, the community or the small business. But anything big, whether it be the very big corporates, the big unions or big government, this Labor Party will back in. Time and time again—and we see it through this proposed legislation—Labor is blocking the aspiration of everyday Australians who want to get ahead.

It was only a few weeks ago that I had my last road trip around my own electorate of Fairfax, and I spoke to a young couple, both of whom were working full-time, rarely finding time to get together because they were working so hard to buy a property. When I put to them the general thrust of what Labor's proposing today, they initially got excited, until they realised that it might end up with the government owning such a large part of their home. The male in that relationship is a builder, and they intend to upgrade whatever property they buy. If they were to be recipients of the scheme put forward and they did upgrade such a home, who would be the recipient of the additional equity created in that property? Would it just be them, or would it also be government? It would also be government. This goes to the core values and visions of the two governing parties of this country, and this bill should be opposed.

See this speech in context