Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by the coalition today.

Coming into this place many moons ago we had question time. The answers were there—there were not many in the gallery there. Minister Wong is a very serious person. I take her answers seriously. I take her actions seriously. I note she was asked two very clear questions, they were the first two questions today, by Senator McKenzie: Can we guarantee that no Australian car will cost more because of the changes to the taxation regime on SUVs and emission standards? Can we guarantee the same choice? Because Senator Wong respects this place, because she takes things seriously, I note she didn't give a fluff answer but she didn't answer those questions, because she can't. There are no guarantees able to be given about what happens to the car industry across Australia.

Instead, the answer given was she could guarantee more Australians more choice. Is that more choice amongst the 64 per cent of EVs that are built by China? Is that more choice amongst all of the EVs that can't be built without components from China? Or is that more choice of the cars we don't yet have and won't be able to build for up to five years in countries that aren't controlled by China, which has 80 per cent of the cathode industry? She said there was no guarantee of loss of choice of vehicles because we give people the cars they want. I notice if you go out and try to buy a hybrid RAV4 you're waiting approximately eight to 12 months because that is a car people want. It is available now. It is viable now.

I note that the car I want, a Ford Explorer, which I ordered in September 2022, landed in Australia on 21 March, just last week. It has taken almost 20 months to get here because that is the car people want. People can get the cars they want now. People can choose the cars they want. If they want EVs, they can buy EVs. We have the Dolphin, a BYD car—the cheapest around.

This is nothing more than a tax. This is a tax on the tradies who need utes. You can't put all of your tilt trays, all of your tools, all of your cement mixers in the back of your Toyota Corolla. You can't put them in the back of your Tesla model Y. If you want to get a Tesla Cybertruck, that's fine but you need about 250 grand to buy the Tesla Cybertruck in the first place.

So what are we doing? We're taxing the cars that make Australia work. We're taxing the vehicles that let Australia get the job done and build a better tomorrow. Why are we doing this? Because it is another opportunity to put levies on people and to get them to drive what the government wants them to drive, own what the government wants them to own and do what the government wants them to do.

As part of this new transparent wonderful government, we asked to see the modelling used to grant this. There was even a question asked by somebody else. The original modelling said there would be about a 60 per cent reduction by 2029. Can we have the new modelling under the new watered-down agreement? No, we can't even get that. We can't even get what the goals of this policy are now it has been watered down. Remember, every group that consulted on this—all the manufacturers, the vehicle bodies, everyone—had to sign non-disclosure agreements. So they can't tell the people of Australia, the parliament of Australia or anyone the effect it will have, because their hands are tied and their throats are gagged from saying what will happen to Australia.

I noticed, in answer to a different question about housing from Senator Bragg, Senator Gallagher stated, 'We are proud of setting a target.' Labor are never going to achieve a target, but they are proud of setting one. It is like reading books from Jeffrey Archer—'Oh, the stars. How great they are. We may never reach them but how better we are for having them there.' 'Let's set a target and then forget about it' is what Labor are telling us. But they won't tell us the target on EVs now they have watered down their policy. They say, 'We're going to do something. We're not going to tell you what we're going to do or how much it's going to cost, but we're going to tell Australians what to drive.' What a great policy! This is what we are all about here. This is the new clear, beautiful, transparent government: 'Do what we tell you but don't ask us to tell you what we're doing.' I note those questions. I note that this will cause higher prices for cars in Australia, not lower prices for fuel.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition were wrong to abandon their own policy in 2016 and are wrong to engage today in a pathetic scare campaign against a policy they embraced and promoted just a few years ago. Do you know how much Australians have wasted, in the time that those opposite have backflipped on their own policy? Around $4 billion. Australians have wasted around $4 billion on fuel because the Liberal Party did not have the courage to stick to a policy that they knew was right. The fuel bill on that inaction is stacking up every single day and Australians are paying the price.

Mr Dutton should explain why he is spending more time spreading disinformation for the sake of it than finding a tangible and practical solution for long-term cost-of-living relief. While those opposite are out there running scare campaigns, the Albanese Labor government is doing something practical and tangible. It is pushing for wage rises to help the country's lowest-paid workers battle cost-of-living pressures. The coalition of chaos is distracted with taking Australia backwards by more than 70 years with its antiworker agenda and wanting Australians to work more but get less in their pockets.

Our government knows that low-paid workers are disproportionately affected by inflation and that the minimum wage is an important tool to counter this. It is not just window dressing. This is why our submission to the Fair Work Commission is pushing for a minimum wage increase to keep pace with inflation. Our tax cuts in July should be in addition to wage increases, not a substitute. We're taking the pressure off workers and family budgets right when Australians need it most. Those opposite just want to create more chaos, and they expect people to work more and earn less. What a shame.

Thanks to the Albanese Labor government's steadfast commitment to delivering meaningful cost-of-living relief for everyday Australians, families and Easter bunnies participating in Easter this weekend can take home more in their Easter baskets. Since Labor took office, this government has delivered billions in targeted and responsible cost-of-living relief: electricity bill relief, cheaper child care, increased rent assistance, more Medicare bulk-billing, cheaper medicines, boosts in income support payments and fee-free TAFE training. We're building more affordable homes, expanding paid parental leave and paying super on paid parental leave too. But that is not all we're delivering this Easter.

From 1 July 2024, every Australian will receive a tax cut. Labor's tax cuts deliver more relief to more people in a way that is fiscally responsible and does not add to inflationary pressures. We want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn, and our bigger tax cuts for more taxpayers will make that happen. The average taxpayer earning around $73,000 will now get a tax cut of more than $1,500 a year. That's around $29 a week. Australia's essential workers, such as nurses, teachers and truckies, are some of the most likely to benefit, with more than 95 per cent of those taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut under Labor. Thanks to Labor, working parents—particularly women with young children—will now be meaningfully supported in their return to work. Under our changes, parents earning less than $45,000 will now receive a tax cut. This will significantly boost the take-home pay of Australians on modest incomes and people working part time. Our tax cuts are good for Middle Australia, good for women, good for helping with cost-of-living pressures, good for labour supply and good for the Easter Bunny this weekend.

While we've secured a tax cut for every taxpayer, Peter Dutton and the Liberals argued against cost-of-living relief. They're interested only in running pointless scare campaigns. Labor's tax cuts will make a real difference for 13.6 million taxpayers who will receive a cut—nearly three million more people than would have benefited from Scott Morrison's plan just five years ago. We're delivering more tax cuts to more people.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer in question time this afternoon from Senator Gallagher really did bell the cat and reveal the fact that Labor has no real interest in ever meeting its supply targets on housing. After almost two years of Labor, you would have to say that their housing policy has been one of their biggest failures. That is because Labor have shown no capacity to meet their own housing targets and because they've showed no creativity in trying to help Australians get into a first home.

This whole issue of homeownership has been made so much more acute because of the recent data that shows 660,000 people coming into the country in the last year and only 170,000 houses being built. So, for every four people who come into the country, there is only one house built. That's a major problem. To make matters worse, all of Labor's policies to try to alleviate the housing disaster either have been stalled in this parliament or have already failed. The HAFF is a $10 billion boondoggle which will be only a minor bandaid on a gaping wound. The Help to Buy scheme, which has already failed at most state levels, is jammed in this parliament for good reason. I agree with the Greens when they point out that the Help to Buy scheme is an absolute joke. No-one wants to use it at a state level, and most Australians don't want to see a politician or the government sitting around their dinner table when they go into the house that they own.

The central problem here is that Labor has given up on homeownership. That is actually the problem; they've given up on it. The only solution is to have super funds own the houses. We're going to give them tax breaks. We're going to have foreign fund managers own the houses, and we'll also give them tax breaks. Then we're going to allow the government to own up to 40 per cent of the equity in your house. So it is a trifecta of giving up on people owning their own house, with the only solutions Labor is willing to countenance being big government, big super funds and foreign fund managers. That is why the issue of housing is getting worse, not better, in Australia. People feel that they will never get into a first home.

The most troubling part of this debate, though, is that Labor will not even countenance thinking about allowing people to use their own money to buy a first home, for example. They don't like the idea of people using their own super, even if that might be their only pool of capital. For many Australians, particularly older millennials, absent the bank of mum and dad, which is now a major lender in Australia, using super may be their only shot at ever getting into that market.

The key determinant of your success in retirement is not your super balance; it is your homeownership status. Labor don't seem to care about this fact. They would rather people be forced to save in super for 40 years, where you have to pay huge fees to the fund managers and where you also have to pay high interest to a bank if you ever get into the market. We are seeing that a large number of Australians are now getting to preservation age and they're using their super to retire their mortgage, so what was the point of super? Why force people to pay huge amounts of interest to a bank when they could've owned their own house faster? It is absolutely crazy.

Labor has given up on homeownership, which is very regrettable for the Australian people, because we're stuck with this government for the short term. The Greens' policy, of course—which is probably less whacky—is that there should be a government property developer, and that should be allowed to build and then sell the houses. That is a Soviet-style approach. It is very interesting but is at least consistent. Then, of course, you have us in the Liberals and the Nationals. We are the only parties that want the people to own their houses. We don't want the super funds, the foreign fund managers or the government to own the houses; we want the people to own their houses, and we want people to be able to use their own money, including their own super, to own their own house. That is why we are committed to—

I will take the interjections—it is why we are committed to seeing more supply, particularly in the cities. We know that you only solve this problem with a huge amount of construction. Therefore, the demonisation of the property sector by the Greens and Labor is just bizarre. These are the people and this is the sector that could actually solve the problem. They could build the houses we need in the cities so that our children have places to live. So it's pretty bizarre, and we thank Senator Gallagher for being honest today about Labor having no plan to solve the housing crisis.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bragg, really? For the last decade, what did you guys do towards the housing supply? Absolutely nothing. And now you're joining the Greens to delay the progressive, ambitious plan we've got on the table.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Payman, I think I have a point of order to my left.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you ask the senator to direct her comments through the chair, please?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Payman, concentrate on me.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Deputy President. I just couldn't help but refer to my friend on the other side.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's really interesting to hear from those opposite, who want Australians to raid their retirement funds for housing. They want to push up property prices so that people like me and many others out there who want to make a living and are struggling to put a roof over their heads don't have a plan. There are many Australians out there that I've spoken to—young people in particular. Can't they have a roof over their heads or be afforded a dignified retirement? It's very surprising to sit here and listen to them attack the ambitious housing reform that we have brought in in the two years that we've been in government, increasing the supply of homes and ensuring that we're working with the states and territories through the $3 billion investment of the New Homes Bonus, which will ensure that there's supply and that Australians, especially low- and middle-income earners, can afford the cost of a mortgage.

As my good friend Senator Stewart highlighted, the cost-of-living measures that our government has taken ensure that we're helping Australians who are doing it tough. But, in saying that, there are cost-of-living pressures that come not just through housing; rather, there are fee-free TAFE courses that we heard the minister mention earlier. We know that in order to be able to supply more homes you need a workforce. That's why we have improved that supply by adding an additional 300,000 fee-free TAFE places from 2024 to 2026 for priority areas, which include construction.

With the Labor Party, what I've noticed in the short time I've been here, is we identify a problem. When there is a problem and we want to address the problem, we do so by consulting with the experts in the field, and then we strive to deliver on what information we've received on the policies in order to ease and make life better for Australians out there. There is no scare campaign on our agenda that we thrive on, there is no spreading of disinformation and we're definitely not wasting time.

That brings me to what Senator Cadell was taking note on earlier about the new vehicle efficiency standard. Something as simple as wanting to give Australians more choice of cars that are cleaner, cheaper and—

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They can just choose now.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection. Allow me to remind the senators on the other side that it was your own policy back in 2016 to introduce a new vehicle efficiency standard and, during the Turnbull government, Senator Simon Birmingham said:

The government intends to encourage more efficient vehicles, which will reduce fuel use and mean cheaper petrol bills for families in the future.

Have we forgotten that? I wonder.

Speaking of being able to choose the vehicle that is right for you and your family but having more options and having the ability to buy a car by 2028 that will save $5,710 over five years, as surprising as it may sound, it's good for the hip pocket and the environment. They're not mutually exclusive, and you can have one with the other.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've listened to all the contributions here this afternoon and I was most enlightened by the contributions of Senator Bragg, who rose to take note of an answer given by Senator Gallagher in relation to homeownership. What struck me most was Senator Bragg's observation, quite rightly, that the Labor government in this country have effectively given up on homeownership in this country. I think that's the takeaway line from this afternoon. I know we've heard a lot of good stuff in here, but that, to me, was the moment.

In one sense it's fairly reminiscent of what we say on this side of the chamber about the Labor Party's approach to working people. We have the Labor Party over there, who are constantly telling us they're on the side of the battler. Every single day we hear that. They're on the side of the blue-collar worker—except all they do every day is make life harder for those people by trying to parrot their unachievable net zero fantasy, which is doing nothing but raising power prices, raising the cost of living and making life hard, but, as we know, keeping the dangerous emissions down for a country that produces just over one per cent of the world's emissions. That is probably off topic.

We are seeing from this government now the supply of new homes in this country crashing to, I think, their lowest level in over a decade in the next couple of years. This is the convergence of two crises. It's the convergence of a number of policy levers that haven't been pulled—the emergency chain—by this government. One of them is, as Senator Bragg pointed out, the increase in immigration—the reckless immigration target. I think it's 600,000 we're likely to be up to in the year ending September. That's 600,000 people that have got to find homes, or less. Three hundred thousand homes or whatever the target is, it is more than this government has the ability to provide.

That's at the same time that, as I said, the cost of living is increasing and, also, rental affordability is absolutely skyrocketing. Minister Gallagher, when she gave her answer today, this afternoon, in question time, did what we hear so frequently during question time, which was to simply obfuscate the answer by saying, 'We've set targets.' I've set a few targets in my life. I didn't actually set the target, but I would have loved to play a professional sport. But guess what? I didn't have a plan or the ability. But that's not the point.

The point is that setting targets is no good unless you've got a plan to back it up. This government doesn't have a plan to back it up in terms of housing increase. It's just not there. None of the government's approaches to date have actually done anything, a bit like me practising kicking for goal—it didn't do anything; I kept spraying them around all over the place. The same is true here. We've seen example after example of that. The Help to Buy scheme—the government introduced it, and at best it was set to deliver 10,000 homes and it cost the Commonwealth $5.5 billion. It seems like they've set a target to spend a lot of money, because that's certainly one they're achieving. The Housing Australia Future Fund, the HAFF, as it was referred to, brings absolutely no guarantees of an increased supply and no guarantees that taxpayers will see positive returns from the fund's investments. But, once again, it's set to cost us big bucks. Spending—that's one thing we know about. The National Housing Accord has a target—good, we've got another target!—of 1.2 million homes, and it's already out of reach.

What does this actually mean? We're now seeing across capital cities something in the order of 79,000 new homes to be finished by 2026. That's, I think, a drop of 26 per cent compared to the last year. When you factor into that the lack of attention—the real thing that'll help here of course is removing red tape. Ask anyone that has built a home or is about to build a home about how difficult it is to get approvals, with the various layers. Why doesn't the government do something to address that as an issue? They could set a target for that, do nothing about it and then do something about it, and it'll fail. That's seemingly the approach from this side of the chamber.

The question then becomes: what would we do? We'd do what we said at the last election. We established the super homebuyer scheme to allow first home buyers to invest up to 40 per cent of their superannuation, and the list goes on.

Question agreed to.