Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023. Many Australians dream of owning their own home; to establish themselves, put down roots and care for something that is theirs. A home provides security and stability; it's a place to raise kids and retire. Home ownership was once a reasonable aspiration, but today we are, sadly, seeing a different narrative play out. Families around Australia are hurting. Every day Bonner locals contact my office seeking assistance to combat the increasing cost-of-living pressures. Australians need relief. Unfortunately, in the midst of a housing crisis, the underwhelming Help to Buy scheme is too little too late.

Last week I hosted a mobile office at Carindale shopping centre. Locals shared with me the housing market situation and their financial security, that was causing disappointment and fear. One resident, a grandmother, said that she doubts that her grandchildren will ever be able to own their own home when everyone is struggling to pay for groceries.

As I continue to fight for financial literacy to be included in the national curriculum, I have spoken to many students, mums and dads about home ownership. Throughout Bonner, there is a resounding disappointment coming from residents who cannot foresee themselves owning a home. While 85 per cent of renters aspire to own their own home, younger Australians are beginning to lose any hope of actually purchasing their own home. A local university student told me that, as a young person, buying a home is just so far away. He said that home ownership is more of a pipedream.

Buying your first home is about accomplishment, responsibility and reward. Help to Buy is a small, niche program open to only 10,000 households each financial year, and it will cost the Commonwealth a disappointing $5.5 billion. Given that there are over 16,000 rental households in Bonner alone, this program does not serve the many more Aussies who want to buy.

Under the scheme, owners will be responsible for all the repairs and all the maintenance on their hard-earned new home. However, when it comes time to sell, the government will be able to take 40 per cent of profits. That's after years of appreciation on the property when you sell it. Furthermore, help-to-buy schemes already exist in many states. However, they are so unwanted by Aussies that there are still places remaining in many of the state based schemes. For example, New South Wales' shared-equity scheme is so unwanted that 94 per cent of its places are still available. Disappointingly, a similar scheme in the UK was found to inflate prices by more than its subsidy value in areas where it was needed the most.

We need policies that empower Australians to own their own home. We need policies that ensure families keep their hard-earned profits in their pockets and reward those who take the initiative. When elected, the Labor government promised that this policy would be in place by 1 January 2023. After waiting over 20 months for this legislation, we are only just having this policy put through the House. This policy is just one of the many examples of a broken promise where Australians are being left behind.

The only housing policies delivering support to first home buyers are the housing policies that Labor inherited from the former coalition government. Under the coalition, first home owners reached their highest levels in almost 15 years. It has been great to see that, over the last three years, the coalition housing policies have supported more than 300,000 Australians with the purchase of a home. Our home guarantee schemes have assisted almost 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families to get into a home of their own with a deposit of as little as five per cent. Our HomeBuilder scheme protected the residential construction industry with more than 137,000 HomeBuilder applications generating $120 billion of economic activity. Our First Home Super Saver Scheme delivered relief on the deposit hurdle by increasing the release amount to $50,000 from $30,000. This means the average couple would be $20,838 better off under the coalition's First Home Super Saver Scheme than if they saved in a standard saving account. The message from Bonner locals is clear: they want to own their own homes. To quote a Rochedale resident who I spoke with before Christmas, 'This proposal is nothing to write home about!'

We need a government who will empower Aussies to confidently enter the housing market. The scheme is too little, too niche and too underwhelming. Those who want to buy a home want to own it themselves; they don't want the government owning a portion. We need to be empowering and supporting Australians as they aspire to accomplish homeownership, to reap the full reward and satisfaction of their hard work.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this cognate debate concerning the Help to Buy Bill 2023 and the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, the bills that give the government a share in your home! This announcement was made during the 2022 election campaign. I remember, at the time, it sounded a bit nutty to me—so nutty I thought we might never actually see it in this place. But, almost two full years later, here it is—sort of. When he announced it, the Prime Minister promised it would start on 1 January 2023. That was 14 months ago. If we are lucky, maybe someone will co-own a home with Albo by the start of 2025.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Flinders, you do need to use correct titles when referring to members of the House.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we are lucky, maybe somebody will co-own a home with the government by the start of 2025. Until then, it will fall into the cupboard of all the Prime Minister's deferred and displaced election promises—for example, that energy bills will go down by $275, which I think we got promised 97 times, or that they will implement stage 3 tax cuts in full, which we got promised about 100 times. But, then again, if I must think a bit more about promises closer to home, there was also that promise to build Baxter Rail. I can't help but read that one out, because, with the Dunkley by-election on Saturday, where our wonderful candidate, Nathan Conroy, will seek the trust and support of the people of Dunkley, voters should remember that the Prime Minister has some form when it comes to breaking promises in our region. On 31 July 2018, the press release said Labor will deliver the Frankston to Baxter rail upgrade, stating:

A Shorten Labor Government will move quickly to deliver the much-needed Frankston to Baxter Rail Upgrade, building on the significant investment the Andrews Labor Government has made in Frankston infrastructure.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Giles, on a point of order?

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is if the member could speak to the bills which are before the House.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Federal Labor is an advocate of the electrification and duplication of the Stony Point line to Baxter to improve train services for commuters across Dunkley and on the Mornington Peninsula.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are stretching the relevance, from what I hear. You do need to get quickly back to the Help to Buy bill.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will. The press release also said:

A Federal Labor Government will electrify and duplicate the track to Baxter, giving commuters better access to high quality public transport and park-and-ride options

The press release goes on for a few more paragraphs, making wonderful promises to do better for the people of my region, to make good on a promise that was actually made by the wonderful dear friend to many of us in this place, the former member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy, who concluded:

Only a Federal Labor Government will make sure that the extension of the line to Baxter, benefiting residents in Frankston and the Peninsula, becomes a reality.

Of course, the Albanese Labor government cancelled that rail project in their 90-day, revised to a 200-day, review of infrastructure last year, together with the much sought after overpass, a jetty road in Rosebud. So it should be no surprise that when you look at the detail of this particular bill that you find a bit of the old bait-and-switch built into the offer.

Firstly, only 10,000 households can be helped each year. It is limited to people who earn less than $90,000 a year or $120,000 for a couple, even though we know people need to earn infinitely more than that just to buy an entry-level home or apartment in my electorate. It is limited in terms of purchase price, for example, to $850,000 in metro Melbourne and $550,000 for the rest of the state of Victoria. And to ensure its availability, states actually need to opt in, even though we already know similar schemes in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia are undersubscribed at the moment. So why would those states opt in unless attempting to simply cost shift while benefiting no new prospective homebuyers? More detail will come in time about the program direction, so we don't quite know yet whether the Commonwealth will cap its contribution, nor how they might treat, for example, the value of any improvements that other homeowners may make to the property.

But most important to me in this bill is that I can reasonably deduce that it will help precisely nobody in my electorate of Flinders. Why? In a nutshell, the median price of a home in my electorate today is $1.13 million and as we saw on the front page of The Age today, you need to earn $220,000 a year to be able to afford such a home—that is, I should point out, a 40 per cent rise on just four years ago. So what you need to earn to afford a house in my electorate of Flinders is quite daunting. For example, if you want a house in Bittern, the average price there is $861,000 and the income you require just to be in the game is $170,000. A house in Capel Sound for $734,000 to buy requires income of $144,000. In Crib Point, a house will cost you in the order of $770,000 and require an income of $151,000. In Hastings, a house will be around $700,000 and require you to earn around $140,000; Pearcedale, almost $1 million, $915,000, requiring an income of about $180,000 a year. And in Somerville, where my electorate office is, a house will set you back about $810,000, needing an income of almost $160,000.

It shouldn't be lost on anyone listening from my electorate at this time that these are exactly the people who were recently punished by the changes to the stage 3 tax cuts. I listened to some of the government speeches on this bill yesterday in this chamber and I was floored to hear some of them mention the magical word 'aspiration'. Perhaps it was only to distinguish themselves from the next-level lecturing from the Australian Greens and their utter disdain for those who work hard and invest in property and, in doing so, create homes in the form of rental properties for others. But it is fair to say that talk of aspiration sits uncomfortably in the mouths of those sitting opposite after they abolished the most meaningful reform to personal income tax that has been attempted in the last decade, one which should have addressed racket creep and would not have cost Australian an additional $28 billion more in income tax over the next decade—that is, $28 billion more over the next decade.

It is perhaps no surprise then that the economic hero of the modern Labor Party, the man whose politics are the stuff of which today's Treasurer's doctorate is made, Paul Keating, in a marvellous and long interview with Michael Stutchbury, reflecting on his 80 years of life, was described as commenting as follows:

While seeking to keep out of current tax policy controversies, he says the top personal income tax should be no higher than 39 per cent, compared with the current 45 per cent rate (plus the 2 per cent Medicare levy).

And he quotes the mighty PJK:

"There's an issue that all societies should have of how much a person's conscientious efforts and wealth should be delivered to the state," he says.

"Once you start getting the top rate over, in my opinion, 39 [per cent], it becomes confiscatory and when they become confiscatory you just lose all that impetus to make a dollar and do clever things."

That's nicely said.

We know he's not the only one who gets it. Some clever work done by Sky News political editor, Andrew Clennell, dug up the old Kevin Rudd plan for tax reform, one which you might say can be classed in the category of aspiration of which those opposite were speaking yesterday. Andrew Clennell reminded us in the first week of February that, upon a time, the Rudd government aspired to install a new tax system, by 2013-14, in which there would only be three tax brackets. The 45c rate would drop to 40c, and the 40c rate would drop to 37c, on its way to 30c. Well, my, how the Labor Party has lost its way. Now it punishes those who earn more than $130,000—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Flinders will pause. The minister has the call on a point of order.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I bring the member back to the bill. She seems to be straying far from the bill.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I ask that the member for Flinders remain relevant to the context of the bill at hand.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now the modern Labor Party punishes those who earn over $130,000, even though you need to earn $100,000 more than that to be able to buy a house in my electorate. They plan to punish those who want to buy a ute—the most popular cars in my electorate being the HiLux, Ranger and RAV4. They want to punish our industries. They even, I read in the paper this morning, want to punish recyclers with a new recycling tax—the first in the world, apparently—that charges those who want to recycle for sending waste overseas to be processed because it can't be processed here.

This Help to Buy scheme, like so many others, promises a myth, a hope, a dream in which the fine detail actually destroys and which, like so many other Labor white elephants we have seen legislated in this place, will miss its target and fail to fulfill the dreams of young and old would-be homeowners alike. This bill and the associated bills will drive up the cost of cheaper homes—that is, if you can find a house under $950,000 in Sydney or $650,000 in Brisbane. The competition at that level will be that much fiercer because the lucky few who will fit into the odd angles of this scheme and its rules will believe that they have a 30 to 40 per cent head start on all the others who do not.

It will also in time drive chaos in the real estate market. What happens when you sell the property? Does the government get the 30 or 40 per cent from the time the property was bought, or does it get the appreciated or even depreciated value? What happens if you've lived in the house for a while, things got really tough, you had to rent it out to make ends meet or to accommodate a growing family, or you move back in with mum and dad for a while or rent something larger on the outskirts of town? Does the government chip in on the capital gains tax when it's charged at the end? I doubt it. As with so much ALP policy in this place, it's too little too late. Its promise will in no way match up with the reality that it delivers.

We know that cost-of-living pressures are crushing Australian families and workers whilst the government is busy patting itself on the back for a 0.1 per cent real wage increase, even though those in small to medium businesses, which are the backbone of this country's economy, are seeing next to nothing of that. We have higher inflation than any major advanced economy, making it virtually impossible to get into the real estate market.

We've also seen food prices go up by nine per cent, electricity prices go up by 20 per cent and gas prices go up by 27 per cent. There have been 12 interest rate hikes, with the highest interest rates and rent rises in over a decade. Today, the average mortgage costs some $25,000 more than it did under the coalition. For most local families, rising costs and interest rates will dwarf anything that they might get from the government's tax cuts in July. While they're struggling to make ends meet, they will find that schemes like these will offer them nothing.

We do know how to address home affordability in this country, and the answer is supply. Rather than dress up harebrained and ineffectual schemes which give the government the back bedroom in your home, this government should be on the phone to the states and territories incentivising the release of land. It should be working with the building and construction industry rather than smashing them with draconian and out-of-date IR laws that will swamp them in red tape, lock them up for inadvertent missteps and give unions free rein over their worksites.

Above all, this government needs to stop making promises it cannot keep. This week, the Housing Industry Association confirmed that Labor's plan to build new homes will fall at least 200,000 homes short of its promise of 1.2 million new homes. At the same time, rents have increased by some 26 per cent, new home approvals remain at their lowest levels in a decade and lending for new homes is at a 20-year low. All the while, Labor plans to bring 1.6 million people to our shores in the next five years. I certainly hope that, when the good dwellers of Dunkley head to the polling booths on Saturday, they remember that you can't trust the Australian Labor Party with your home.

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

It's good to contribute to this important debate on the Help to Buy Bill 2023. It's unfortunate that the debate on this bill has been delayed for so long. It was back on 1 May 2022 that the Prime Minister made what was billed at the time as a very important announcement about the so-called Help to Buy scheme. The scheme was going to come in in early 2023, and it was going to be a wonderful scheme. But what we actually find is that we're here in February 2024 and it is only now that the government is bringing on this debate on the bill. If it's such a crucial issue and such a centrepiece of the government's proposal, why has it taken so long for this bill to come forward?

It really goes to a general question of competence. Really, there's nothing more important than competence. If this is such a crucial matter as the Prime Minister said, why has it taken the minister so long? It's good that the minister's here to participate in the debate, but it's a very slow-moving area of policy under this government. We see lots of, frankly, very shallow headlines about housing and housing accords and all the things that the government is going to do in relation to housing, but what actually happens? The answer is: basically nothing. Virtually no homes have been built or contributed to by this government, and we see this extraordinary delay and drift.

I think it's really quite characteristic of the general delay and drift that we're seeing under this government. Of course, in 2023 so much of the government's energy was absorbed in the Voice debate, with the very substantial expense of more than $400 million that went into that Voice debate and a lot of distraction, unfortunately. What that meant was that on issues like housing policy, which I think we'd all acknowledge are very important—it's a very important issue in my electorate and right around the country—basically nothing has happened.

If the government can point to tangible things that have actually happened as opposed to broad, generic statements, press releases or self-congratulatory talking points, that is fine. But that's not the case. In recent times, we've heard the Premier of New South Wales say that the government's housing targets certainly won't be achieved in the largest state, or even get close to being achieved. We've seen that the government has made an announcement about how many homes it's going to build, which will require the states to do a lot of the heavy lifting, without the states making the same commitment. It's really a bit of a debacle, because so little is actually happening. I would really welcome the government pointing to something and saying, 'This has actually happened in housing policy,' because so little—virtually nothing, in fact—has happened. It is an indictment on this government.

An honourable member: They had a lot of roundtables.

This is a government that never saw a roundtable that it didn't like. They love roundtables, consultative processes and forums, but what about Australians who are struggling to get into the housing market? That's a lot of Australians. This is a really important area, and it requires a seriousness of purpose that we're just not seeing. We saw such an extraordinary lost opportunity through 2023, with so much time lost by this government.

The specifics of this scheme are very troubling. The first important point is that, even on the government's own calculations, this scheme would only be open to 10,000 households per year and would cost $5½ billion. That's a very substantial cost, and a very, very small number of people would benefit. Of course, that 10,000 is the number in the press release. What we know of this document is that, if they say a number, you're going to want to apply a discount to that number. It's probably not going to happen.

Of course, the most infamous example of that is the Prime Minister's statement some 97 times before the election that the cost of electricity would decline for the average family. That the cost of electricity would decline by some $275 is an important issue—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Minister, a point of order?

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would draw your attention to the fact that he strayed from the content of the bill.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Banks has until just now stuck to the content of the bill. I'd like to encourage him to continue to address the bill at hand.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to 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.

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

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Help to Buy Bill 2023 is definitely a bill that impassions the spirits of both sides of the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, you have heard from speaker after speaker in this place from the coalition about our enthusiasm for Australians to own their own homes. It is in our DNA. It is etched in the genesis of our political party, through Sir Robert Menzies himself. You've heard that time and time again from different speakers who have prosecuted their contributions here today.

So, rather than continue along the lines of previous speakers, I thought I would take a slightly different tack with this debate and talk about my own personal experience with entering the housing market. Then I want to talk, through the prism of Queensland, about some of the issues that we have up there and contrast the policies that we have as a coalition with those of the government. I will reiterate through this speech how our policies when we were in government helped no fewer than 300,000 homeowners into the market.

During this speech, I will touch on the fact that the Help to Buy policy, which we're debating now, is contingent on states approving and adopting a similar model in their own jurisdictions. This legislation is not autonomous throughout the country. It needs other legislative instruments to attach itself to, and that becomes problematic because, as you've heard from previous speakers, those legislative instruments that may be in different states are underutilised, so, if there are spaces available for participants and states to take up, they're not adopting them. They're not flavoursome. It is the equivalent of thinking that the way we're going to get record sales in a car yard is to promote the ugliest and most unroadworthy vehicle in the fleet and that that's somehow going to turn our sales fortunes around. This is what this speaks to.

My wife and I bought our first home in a small town called Blackwater in Central Queensland. It's not a big town, but do you know what? It's what we could afford. I think I was 22 or something when we bought it, and we paid $55,000 for it. It was a high-set three-bedroom HardiePlank, brick based, with a two-car double lock-up tilter garage door. It backed onto the golf course. It had polished floors, a basic kitchen and an internal stairwell. There was a rumpus room downstairs. It was a reasonable home. At that point in time, I had trouble raising the deposit for a $55,000 home.

As I continue on this story, I don't want people to take away from this that I'm saying the secret to homeownership is to head to the regional areas, but I do want to shine a light on those regional areas that would embrace families and that the median house prices in regional areas are often much lower than they are in our capital city CBDs, when you do your analysis. It's not as if you're asking Blackwater people to go and live in a community where the median wage is low. This is a mining town. There are three to four coal mines owned by multinationals and private companies in which the median wage is north of $150,000 for the entire township. When you've got two revenues coming into a house, a double-income household, you can save.

Before I came in to deliver this speech, I went on realestate.com.au and had a quick look at what price you could buy house in Blackwater for these days. For houses with a similar description to the house that I bought, you can still pick one up for $220,000, which would be the median. Some are higher, up to $300,000, but they're not overly expensive. Homeownership is within the grasp of people, but the equation of getting there has become—and the expectations. It's spoken about in RSLs and with Rotary and Lions community groups in my electorate, who say to me: 'The expectations on the next generations are much greater than what we had when we first bought our home. Our first home may not have had a concrete driveway, may not have had curtains and certainly may not have had carpets in it.' But the homes today, when we calculate the median home price, are often based on the assumption that they have four bedrooms, two bathrooms and double car lock-up, and are lowset brick, fully fenced, turfed and air-conditioned with every possible extra that generations before may have taken some time to get to.

In Queensland, we have a situation where we need 48,000 houses built a year. Currently the market is at full noise reaching 34,000. So we're 14,000 houses short at the moment, and what this debate on the Help to Buy bill allows us to do is address the demand and supply push. We'll be opposing this, and all the speakers on the coalition have made that point abundantly clear. We'll be opposing this bill because we just can't work out how it addresses the supply side of the argument. When I talk to builders, the ones that haven't gone broke recently—and Madam Speaker, as you would well know, if you turn the television on and watch the news cycle, it's with awkward regularity that we're seeing building companies collapse, under this government. It is with awkward regularity that we're seeing local builders go broke, under this government. It's just shameful that we're seeing this spike in builders leaving the industry since Labor came to power.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Going broke.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Going broke—as the member for Fisher would well know, being a former builder and a barrister in the industry. He knows only too well. But the point I was going to make about the supply side is that, when I talk to builders and developers, the first thing they talk to me about is the extraordinary costs that have increased over the years, sometimes three hundredfold, when it comes to developing land so that construction can happen on it. Construction costs as a result of Labor's inflation since they came to office have had unmitigable consequences in the building sector, particularly in situations where people sign up to contracts. Prices shift, the builder's locked into it and they go broke because there's no way they can deliver the product at the price that was agreed to. The landowner often loses their deposit. There are no winners in that situation.

As I said in my opening comments, I want to acknowledge what we have done and what the member for Deakin, the former minister, who choreographed some of the most amazing policies, has done, which is stick no less than 300,000 people into homes with the policies that he and our government helped choreograph. The coalition supported almost 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families into homeownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme, consisting of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, the First Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee, with deposits of as little as two per cent and five per cent. Those are real savings that help people get into homes. By all accounts, the Home Guarantee Scheme is now supporting one in three homebuyers in this country. The coalition needs to be acknowledged for that legacy that has been left behind. It's an amazing product.

We protected the residential construction industry with more than 137,000 HomeBuilder applications that generated no less than $120 billion worth of economic activity. We provided $2.9 billion of low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings, saving $470 million in interest payments to be reinvested in more affordable housing. We unlocked just on 7,000 social, affordable and market dwellings through the coalition's $1 billion infrastructure facility, making housing supply more responsive to demand. We established the First Home Super Saver Scheme, helping 27,600 first home buyers accelerate their deposit savings through their super. That was a great product as well.

Since 1 January 2020 the Home Guarantee Scheme, consisting of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, the New Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee, has assisted almost 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families get into their homes with a deposit of as little as five per cent or two per cent. It was a 2019 election commitment that was delivered. Fifty-two per cent of the 60,000 guarantees have been taken up by women, which is great news. It's well above the market average, which was 41 per cent of women entering into homeownership. We provided an environment where, under that scheme, it was 52 per cent. One in five guarantees issued went to essential workers—people who work on our front lines. Thirty-five per cent of them were nurses and 34 per cent were teachers. Eighty-five per cent of Family Home Guarantees were used by single mums. Our policies worked.

The First Home Super Saver Scheme addressed the deposit hurdles. It's the most challenging aspect of getting onto the property ladder, which is why first home buyers can accelerate their deposit savings through super with an increased release of up to $50,000, up from $30,000. This means that the average couple would be $20,838 better off under the coalition's First Home Super Saver Scheme than if they used a standard savings account. There are a number of different programs that we implemented that have had a profound difference.

Often you will hear people make comments that they can't tell the difference between the policies of Labor or the Greens or the coalition and that they're all the same. Can I point them to no less than this particular piece of legislation? There could not be a more stark contrast in our political DNA and in our political footprints. When you have a look at the Greens, particularly in Brisbane, there's not a building application in that area that they will not oppose. They walk into this place and they'll fight for projects like this, but quietly, in their electorates, they'll be running their social media campaigns opposing developments and opposing low-cost affordable housing in their electorates. It's absolute NIMBYism—nothing in my backyard. 'We don't want extra people putting pressure on our services and infrastructure.' It's a disgrace.

We commend Labor for bringing this piece of legislation to the House. You need to commend them for having a crack, but I just can't see how this legislation, without having those legislative instruments in the states, will have the bite that it's supposed to.

Our policies worked. Our policies are proven. Our policies have got no less than 300,000 homeowners into the Australian dream, and it's only our side in government, with prudent management, with proven leaders sitting in this chamber at the moment, that will lead our country to higher homeownership. Those on the other side of this chamber talk the talk, but I can guarantee you they can't walk the walk.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a great privilege to talk on this bill, the Help to Buy Bill 2023, with the minister present and the shadow minister present as well. I think the minister and the shadow minister might disagree about a lot of things, but I'm sure the one thing they do agree on is this, and I certainly understand that. They have a big job because housing affordability is a massive issue in our country, as is rental affordability.

Just in my own family, actually, my eldest daughter couldn't afford the rent on her place, so she had to move back home. I was very happy about it, so was my wife, but I don't think my daughter was as happy. The point is she had to move back in with us, and we're delighted that she's there, but she moved back in simply because she couldn't afford the rent where she was. My son moved to Sydney and is furiously saving to try and save enough money for a deposit. It's almost like he can't catch up because the prices keep going up and up. It is a massive issue. I know the minister understands that and I know the shadow minister understands that.

I won't go into some of the failings of the particular model that Labor have proposed. That's been done very articulately by other speakers on this side. I'll just mention that I think the number of households and people that this will help is quite minuscule, and, obviously, the money's quite huge for the number of houses and the number of people that it will potentially or maybe help. So I think it's poorly designed.

But I want to focus a little bit more on supply. The previous speaker, the member for Wright, touched on it as well. For the Commonwealth government, this issue, with all due respect to the government, has got a lot worse in the last couple of years. This issue is all about supply. Housing affordability is getting worse and rental affordability is getting worse because we simply do not have enough of a supply of homes in this country, and that's the issue. We just need more supply on the market. I don't think that this particular bill or policy helps increase supply anyway, so that's not necessarily going to help many people either.

To flick it a bit, to absolve both sides of the chamber on this issue, supply often is in the hands of local government, and I encourage the minister to work at both the state government level and the local government level and put conditions on them to actually force councils, whether it be by tying it to grants or whatever, to increase supply—especially given that we have 1.5 million people arriving in this country over the next few years. This policy isn't going to get anywhere close to helping with that.

I'll give you one example. I have a housing development proposal in my electorate called the North Lismore Plateau. Do you know how many years that's been on the books? Have a guess, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou. How many years do you think the North Lismore Plateau has been on the books of the local government authority? Twenty-five. I don't think you were thinking it was 25, Deputy Speaker. You didn't speak out loud, but I reckon you were thinking it was less than 25 years. How can you sit on a housing proposal for 3,000 or 4,000 homes for families for 25 years? It's now going through some state government process; people are appealing it; people don't want it. I'll make an aspersion on the Greens here: most of the people who come to me to talk about the lack of housing—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 27 February and amended earlier today, the debate is interrupted.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that this bill be now read a second time.