Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

What I will point out is that that contribution is not very far away from the Greens political party contribution. It makes as much sense. It goes to the same issues—a sort of extremism of Left and Right that joins together, as always, in a position that frustrates the ambitions of ordinary Australians. There isn't much difference between the contributions of Senator McKim in this place or Mr Chandler-Mather in the House of Representatives and what Senator Rennick just said. It's the same strange, weird economics that drives the position.

The problem is that if this bill is frustrated in the Senate, who loses? Well, 40,000 ordinary Australians lose—low- and middle-income Australians; nurses, teachers, tradies, truckies, early childhood education workers, care workers, disability workers. Forty thousand Australians will miss out on the opportunity for the government to support them to own a home.

There are all sorts of wild things being said in the debate about the government's broader agenda in housing. But, at its heart, this proposition is a modest proposition that would support 40,000 Australians putting a roof over their head and giving their partner and their children some security. It would give them security and certainty to build equity over time and, despite all of the things that have been said here, for most of them it will give them 100 per cent ownership of their own home. The silliness of this debate—the fake conviviality; the pats on the back between the Greens political party, the extreme right and Peter Dutton's Liberal-National party; the glee with which they approach this most juvenile of political victories—creates the problem that the 40,000 people who miss out are nurses, teachers et cetera. They're people that these senators will never meet. They're people who will miss out in suburban Australia and in regional towns. They will miss out.

If you're trying to get on the ladder and could have benefited from this scheme—if you're a nurse or a teacher or you work in the police force or the fire brigade and you can't get a home; if you're working your guts out and this shared-equity scheme would have supported you—then I will be really clear: blame the Greens political party, the Liberal and National parties and the extreme right of Australian politics, who are all in this together and who make as much sense as each other. They focus on the partisan interest rather than the Australian interest, because that's all they care about.

This is juvenile student politics. If you want to participate in student politics, that's a good thing. There are plenty of mature age students out there. Enrol in a course and go hang out. What has been advanced in here in terms of opposition to this bill is not serious. It's not serious; it's not real. But who suffers? Ordinary Australians do. When you listen to some of the speeches in opposition to this bill—and, again, I'll focus on Senator Rennick because my memory only reaches that far back. Senator Rennick said that he wants Australians to jump out of bed, get their nose to the grindstone and work harder. Well, I think Australians do work hard. The Albanese government thinks Australians do work hard.

The truth is that there are nearly a million more Australians in work because of this government. Australians are working more hours. There are more hours of work available to people. They are earning more and, because of our tax cuts, keeping more of what they earn, but they need support. We're on their side. So, if you're in one of those low- and middle-income occupations, in the community sector, in the caring professions, in the police, in the fire brigade, and you cannot get the equity together to purchase a home, the Albanese government's Help to Buy scheme is there to support you.

If the Help to Buy scheme is voted against tonight and tomorrow, the reason that it's not available for you is that Mr Dutton, Mr Littleproud, Mr Bandt and Mr Chandler-Mather all decided you weren't worth it. What was more important was their opportunity to run the crassest, lowest form of political argument. What Mr Dutton has tried to do is to eke out incremental political victories by trying to make Australians lose. If you lose in the battle to buy a new home, it's a victory for Mr Chandler-Mather and Senator McKim—and it's a victory for Mr Dutton. They love failure because that's their political message. The bitterness and venality of that approach and lack of interest in ordinary Australians is all they have.