Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's a great pleasure to rise and discuss homelessness and housing affordability because my party, the Liberal Party, has for more than 75 years been a champion of homeownership. To see that you have only to go back to our party's founder, Robert Menzies, who in the lead-up to the creation of the Liberal Party was, in the early 1940s, talking vigorously about the value of homeownership. The value of homeownership transcends money because people who have a home have a greater stake in society. I think that's something that we can all agree on. At the end of the Menzies era, homeownership sat at about 70 per cent, which is a high number when you consider homeownership figures around the world. So it's always been part of the fabric of the Liberal Party's DNA that we support homeownership. Of course we do. That is something that we have been pursuing in more recent years, including during the Morrison government's tenure. We have established NHFIC, the organisation designed to drive social housing and community housing. And I should say at this juncture that everyone's got an important job. Every worker is an essential worker, but there have been instances where people who are working in the services, whether as police or ambos, have not been able to access the housing market in inner-city Melbourne and Sydney. One of the things NHFIC has been doing is establishing community housing.

I've had the pleasure of meeting with some of these organisations throughout Sydney, where NHFIC has invested public money to ensure that people who are working in the services are able to access houses in the inner city. Over the few years that NHFIC has already been in operation it has delivered $2.5 billion in approved loans, for 4,600 new dwellings and 8,300 existing dwellings. That is a tangible example of a program established under the Morrison government that has been driving higher levels of social and community housing, thereby building on that Menzian legacy of our overriding generational commitment to homeownership, because without homeownership people have a lower level of buy-in to our society.

One of the interesting parts of this debate is that the Labor Party is obsessed with superannuation, for various political and economic reasons. It's great to come in here and be lectured by the Greens about how apparently we are corrupt. But the most corrupting element that has been a feature of Australian economic policy over the past 30 years has been superannuation, because the superannuation funds and the unions have bought the Labor Party's policy advocacy lock, stock and barrel. It is true that homeownership has reduced significantly over the past 30 years. What also happened 30 years ago? The superannuation schemes started. There is no doubt that, among low-income workers, people have to choose between the super guarantee and a deposit for a first home. I have had people write to me saying that basically because of their super contribution they won't be able to pull together a deposit for a first home. That is a depressing consequence of super.

And not everything needs to be boiled down to talking points, written by a central office. The reality is that super is actually quite a good idea. There is no question that self-provision is a good idea, especially if we face undesirable demography. Next week we'll see the Intergenerational report. When that is released on Monday, it will give us a snapshot of Australia's future. Again, that will highlight the need for Australia to save more. Those of us on our side of the house are not hostile to super, but we would like to see it work better. The laws that were passed last week will finally put in place a system that will ensure that super will work for the workers, as opposed to working for the unions and the banks.

But super could do more to drive homeownership. Throughout the course of this period in office, the Liberal Party has deployed some changes to the super scheme that will allow super to be used for a first home. In the last budget we expanded the First Home Super Saver Scheme so that people can pull out up to $50,000 from their super to use for a first home. That is an entirely reasonable proposition. But it is a proposition that is available to people who are putting in discretionary contributions, above and beyond the super guarantee. Most Australians don't have the means to do that.

So I still think there is merit in our looking, in the longer term, at circumstances in which people could use their super guarantee contributions to purchase a first home. I think it is mean to deny people access to their own money for the purposes of homeownership, and that is something I hope we return to in the future.

Of course, the super funds have their own plan here. The super funds have been lobbying down here in Canberra and they want to get special tax treatment so they can acquire or get access to what they call 'build to rent' dwellings. Effectively, this is where they would own the buildings and then rent them out to the super fund members—thereby, the funds own the building. The members pay the funds to rent their flats or apartments or houses to the super funds. That embeds a loss of homeownership for all time, because the super funds own it. They are motivated by profit, not by any altruistic purpose.

In order to drive more homeownership, we have as well introduced measures to allow people to downsize, so people can sell their family home and put that money into super. Equally, we have increased the CGT discount. On the question of taxes, I've never seen a higher tax burden create more homes. At the last election, Labor had a policy that would have reduced the CGT discount and, thereby, increase the tax burden on houses. As we pointed out during the election campaign, increasing housing taxes will mean you have fewer houses—so Labor appears now to have run away from that policy. Let's see what they do in the coming election. My sense is that they will adopt a small target strategy. That may be politically advantageous but, as we know, with Labor there's always a hidden high tax somewhere.

Ultimately, the choice here is pretty simple. We will always pursue targeted policies to try to drive homeownership, because that is what we've done since the Menzies era. Over the last year, as a result of our policies—through NHFIC, in particular—you have seen the highest level of homeownership for first home buyers since 2009. More than 155,000 people who are first home buyers have entered the market in the year to March 2021, according to the ABS. Our policies are driving a high level of homeownership, and it is a social, moral and economic good for us to be driving homeownership.

At the end of the Menzies era you had 70 per cent of people in homes. That is a high figure and a figure we should try and maintain, over the long run, because people who have a home, people who live in a home, have a greater stake in society. There is more value to a home than the words that were uttered in The Castle. A home is a place to build a family and there will always be a great value in that, which is why we have pursued a multitude of measures. That's why we've established NHFIC. That's why we've tried to drive community and social housing. We want to see people who are coppers and ambos and nurses get access to inner city housing. It is an important part of the social fabric.

Homeownership is heading in the right direction under us. Labor Party solutions are just to have more super for their mates in the unions. Unfortunately, the super guarantee increase will eat the wages increase that is built into the budget, over the forward estimates, but Labor don't care about that. They would rather see all the money go to the super funds, ultimately, through to the unions and, subsequently, through to the Labor Party so they can use it for campaigning purposes. It is a regrettable situation. But there will be more homes under us.