Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before making my contribution, I just want to respond to a few of the points raised by Senator Walsh. In particular, we're not voting against the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill because of fear, Senator Walsh. We're voting against this bill because it is bad policy. I'll talk about why in a moment, but let me make that very clear.

Where did Senator Walsh start? With listing those who support this—state governments and industry associations in the housing sector. Well, quite frankly, surprise, surprise! A big bucket of 'free money' is supported by the state governments. This shouldn't come as a blinding shock to anybody. In fact, if you had to invent a caricature of a Labor-Greens policy proposal, this bill would be it.

Imagine you were writing a script for The Hollowmen. I'm sure many of the listeners out there remember that fine ABC show about Canberra and this place and how policy is created. Imagine you were writing a script for that show and you said: 'The main characters are sitting down in a room with a whiteboard. We need a housing policy! Oh, we haven't got enough money for a housing policy. Where can we get some? We can borrow some money! $1 billion? $2 billion? No, let's make it $10 billion! Oh, everyone will react to that—$10 billion of government borrowing. You'd have to look at that seriously, wouldn't you? And then we'll invest that money, and we'll try and make enough money out of investing that money to build some houses.' That is the policy that this government has come up with. It literally should have been a script for The Hollowmen.

The Housing Australia Future Fund will be capitalised with $10 billion of Commonwealth government debt. With a 10-year government bond rate at four per cent and rising, $10 billion of borrowing will cost the government $400 million per annum in interest-servicing costs before they build one house. Think about that for a moment—$400 million per annum before one house is built. It also adds to inflationary pressures in the economy. Borrowing $10 billion adds to inflationary pressures. So we've got a housing policy that adds to inflationary pressures and incurs $400 million of debt per annum in servicing costs alone before a house is built. If it wasn't so serious for the Australian economy, it would be a joke. It should be treated like a joke by those in this place, but it's part of the Labor-Greens alliance. They had a little tiff on the way, but in the end, this joke of a policy, with the Labor and Greens support, is going to be enacted, and that is a very sad thing for this nation.

I think we should take housing policy seriously. I think we should seek to see every Australian who wants to be in a home of their own, in a home. I think we need to look at ways—and the state governments in particular need to look at ways—of making housing more affordable and more available. That has to be done at the supply side. We need to see more homes on the market. We need to see the regulatory barriers to land being made available for the works that local government needs to do to get those blocks to be available. We need to see all of those streamlined to the absolute nth degree at the moment. We want young Australians to be able to get into the housing market.

We also want to see the unnecessary regulation—red tape, burdens—gone. There is one particular new housing development in Western Australia where I have had it quoted to me that because of the requirements of the build in that area each house is going to cost at least $30,000 more than it otherwise would if it weren't for those regulatory burdens. This isn't the way to get young people into housing. We need to get rid of that red tape and get more properties onto the market, and we need to get more land released. That is the way to bring housing prices into an affordable place in the economy so young people can get into the housing market.