Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

My questions are related to those asked by Senator Macdonald—they are in a similar vein. In relation to the minister saying that the government is not bailing out any bank at this point, I want to be certain that the $6.6 billion to be spent on social and defence housing is not going to be used to bail out developers and ultimately the banks from the consequences of their imprudent activities during the housing boom. The reason is that I have had an email from a constituent saying that the first tranche of the National Rental Affordability Scheme, while it was hyped as a stimulus to construction, in fact was used to soak up a developing overhang of already built housing inventory on developers’ books. With the tripling of the first home owners grant for new housing, again it was about a stimulus to construction but, because there was no requirement that the construction occur after the date of the policy announcement, in fact it too was about bailing out developers and banks, effectively by stimulating the economy to the extent that young first home buyers would buy some of the stock which developers had built, much of it not energy efficient, as part of that development boom. The issue is then how much of the $6.6 billion is going to buy up stock which the developers have not been able to sell.

So what I am asking is: is there any requirement that the $6.6 billion for new housing be post the announcement so that you cannot just go back and bail out the developers with stock on their hands and therefore, ultimately, the banks? The government has said in its own materials that this will allow the purchase of some already existing housing and some greenfield sites. I would like from the minister some answer as to whether there are any associated regulations around the $6.6 billion to make sure that this is not effectively a bailout of developers and the banks but the stimulus—