Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It takes a lot of courage for the member for Deakin to come to the dispatch box saying he's in support of a motion on housing affordability, because there's not a person in this House that has done more to make housing in this country more unaffordable for Australians trying to get into the housing market. On his watch the average price of housing went up 30 per cent. There is not a person in this House who has done more to make housing less affordable for young Australians who are trying to get into the housing market than the member for Deakin. I expected when he came to the dispatch box that he'd present at least an apology or, if not an apology, an idea—an idea that was going to do something to build more houses and make housing more affordable. There was lots of sloganeering, lots of negativity but not one new idea.

Their big idea to resolve the housing problem that young Australians are facing—particularly those who are either renting or who want to get into the housing market—is to bust the superannuation system. We know because expert after expert—indeed, coalition MP after coalition MP—have pointed out that this is a wrongheaded policy. If you want to make housing more affordable, you don't tip millions and millions of dollars into the demand side, pushing up the prices. You don't have to take it from us; have a look at independent research that has looked at this. The consequence of their policy is to drive up median house prices over $75,000. The member for Deakin wants a pat on the back. He already drove house prices up 30 per cent over the three years when he was housing minister. He wants to add another $75,000 to the median price of a house. And he says this is going to do something about housing affordability? These blokes have got rocks in their heads! They call themselves responsible economic managers; they don't know the basics about economics. They don't know the basics about supply demand. Not one new house will be built under their policy.

You don't have to take my word for it. Look at what members on their own side have said about it—because this is not a new policy. It's been recycled every three years for the last 30 years. Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton had this to say: 'It's not good policy.' The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said:

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

The member for Deakin himself had this to say when he was housing minister:

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.

From his own lips. Thirty per cent. When he last had an opportunity to do something about the housing crisis, their singular policy wouldn't have built one new house. It'll put a few more people in the queue at every housing auction on a Saturday. There'll be more people in the queue bidding up the price by $75,000 for an average house at auction—$75,000 more unaffordable under their policy—but not one new house. Not one new house will be built under this policy.

I'll be interested to see what the shadow finance minister has to say after the Leader of the Opposition makes his speech tonight. They've been out briefing the gallery that this is their singular big idea to resolve housing prices—wreck the superannuation system. Senator Jane Hume, when she was asked this question said, 'I would imagine in the short term you might see a bump in house prices.' So, young people who are thinking about whether they're going to be able to afford a house at the housing auction or the sales next Saturday will know this: as hard as things are right now, if this mob get their way then there will be $75,000 extra on the price of the median house in any auction they go to around the country. That's a hard number: a $75,000 increase in housing. You don't have to take it from us. Take it from the Leader of the Opposition: 'It's not good policy.' Take it from Senator Jane Hume, the shadow finance minister, who still has some sway in their show, I understand. She imagines—and she's right—that you'll 'see a bump in house prices'.

We are faced with a stark choice. There is the policy of the government, which is to build more houses and to assist young people into the housing market. Then there is the policy of the opposition, which is to fulfil their long-held desire to smash the superannuation system. It won't build one new home, but it will smash the superannuation system. There is the policy of the government, which is to make housing more affordable, and the policy of the opposition, which is to make housing more expensive. There is the policy that is about helping Australians, particularly young Australians, to buy a home, and there are the policy proposals of the opposition, which will make it even harder.

The government has an ambitious agenda to build 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade through our Homes for Australia plan—in this budget an additional $1 billion to get homes built sooner and a new $9.3 billion five-year national agreement on social housing and homelessness. The shadow minister, when he was minister, couldn't even utter the word 'homelessness', could not even speak the word 'homelessness', did not think it was a part of his portfolio responsibility. Under our policies, there is record investment in social and affordable housing, including the additional $2 billion that was provided to state and territory governments last year to ensure that we could get urgent investment into social and affordable housing.

The member for Deakin mocked this policy, but it's actually working. He seems to think there is something wrong in going to a stock of public housing that is currently unfit for human habitation and renovating that housing to ensure that it can be used. You've got an empty building, empty units, unfit for habitation, and you invest in renovating and upgrading that, and you can move more people into it, including homeless people—and that's somehow a policy failure? Well, I see that as a policy success, because it gets more houses into the market sooner and gives more people who are currently homeless a roof over their head.

This is the sort of approach we are deploying. The member for Deakin thinks it's something to laugh at. We think it's a good thing that we're putting roofs over the heads of people who need it the most. We're putting in place new provisions to incentivise the boost in supply of rental housing by changing arrangements for investments to ensure that we can boost build-to-rent accommodation, because we understand that this is an entire ecosystem. Yes, we need to ensure that we've got more social and affordable housing. Yes, we need to ensure that we've got build-to-rent housing, because there will still be a strong demand for rental accommodation, particularly for key worker housing or for workers who are temporarily locating to a particular area. We need more rental accommodation, and our build-to-rent policies are designed to meet that need. We are not only ensuring that young Australians are not asked to give up on the dream of owning their own home but we are also ensuring that young Australians don't have to make a choice that nobody else in this parliament was ever asked to make.

Under the plan proposed by the coalition, young Australians are being asked to make a choice between whether they save for their retirement or whether they own their own home. There is not a person in this House who has been asked to make that choice. Our message to young Australians is that we want to ensure you can own your own home. We are putting in place the policies to ensure that you can do it, whether it's the Help to Buy scheme, whether it is the Home Loan Guarantee Scheme or whether it's our record investments in affordable housing. They are all designed to ensure young Australians can live up to their dream—that every generation prior to that has had—of owning their own home, but not at the expense of raiding their superannuation. We know what the cost of that policy is—devastating for young Australians. According to Treasury analysis, a 35-year-old median income owner who withdraws $74,000 will be $100,000 worse off, a 22 per cent reduction. The proposition is simple: we do not believe that Australians should have to make a choice between their superannuation and owning a home, and that is the difference between us and them.

See this speech in context