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

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Help to Buy Bill 2023.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—In respect of the Help to Buy Bill 2023, I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3160 together:

(1) Clause 25, page 17 (after line 21), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) Directions in the Help to Buy Program Directions about the matter mentioned in paragraph (2)(c) must require housing Australia to prioritise entering into Help to Buy arrangements in relation to priority residential properties.

(2B) Directions in the Help to Buy Program Directions about the matter mentioned in paragraph (2)(d) must provide that the Commonwealth's maximum contribution under a Help to Buy arrangement in relation to a residential property is:

(a) if the property is a priority residential property—40% of the cost of acquiring the property; and

(b) otherwise—30% of the cost of acquiring the property.

(2C) For the purposes of subsections (2A) and (2B), a priority residential property is a residential property that:

(a) will be, is being or has been built; and

(b) has not been previously occupied; and

(c) is or will be a Class 2 building (within the meaning of the National Construction Code); and

(d) is or will be located within 800 metres of a train or light rail station, a tram, bus or ferry stop, or any other public transport service that is frequently available for use by the public.

(2) Clause 26, page 18 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) The Minister must not give a direction under paragraph 24(1)(a) that has, or is likely to have, the effect of:

(a) requiring a party to a Help to Buy arrangement to repay an amount to the Commonwealth if the party's income exceeds a specified threshold; or

(b) requiring the Board or Housing Australia to terminate a Help to Buy arrangement if the income of a party to the arrangement exceeds a specified threshold.

Despite months of keeping our doors open and despite months of offers to compromise and negotiate on securing some housing policies that will actually impact people's lives, Labor have refused to budge and made it clear that they don't care about the depth and the extent of the housing crisis. Last year, the Greens secured $3 billion in new investments for social housing, which is six times more than what the government has proposed to spend. This year, despite the need being even greater, the government has snubbed every opportunity to work together with the Greens again, and we are—we have to admit this—bitterly disappointed that Labor has turned down an opportunity to house up to 60,000 people currently on the brink of homelessness. The government's build-to-rent and Help to Buy schemes sound nice, but they really are just tinkering around the edges.

The Greens will, however, pass the government's bills, both build to rent and Help to Buy, because we're now just months away from an election and we want to focus on keeping Mr Dutton and his fearmongering and politics-of-division coalition out of the Lodge. That is going to be our focus. There does come a point in every negotiation where you've pushed as far as you can, and we have reached that point. We have tried so hard to get Labor to shift on soaring rents and negative gearing, but we couldn't get there this time around.

So we'll wave these housing bills through and take the fight to the next election, where we will keep Peter Dutton out and we will fight even harder for renters and first home buyers. We will wave through Labor's Help to Buy Bill and also Labor's build-to-rent bill after accepting that Labor doesn't care enough about first home buyers to do anything really meaningful for them, like scrapping the unfair tax handouts to property investors that drive up house prices or establishing a public developer to build and sell homes cheaply to save first home buyers up to $249,000.

The bill we're debating is deeply inadequate for the—really, you can call it monstrous—affordability crisis facing first home buyers, because, for the average family, the typical home costs eight times their income. It now takes 10 years to save for a deposit. If they've managed to save one, mortgage repayments could take up to 60 per cent of their income. How is that fair? Help to Buy tinkers around the edges, helping, at most, 0.2 per cent of renters every year and leaving the other 99.8 per cent behind to face a brutal housing system and doing nothing to address the out-of-control house price rises, which have really made it impossible to buy a house in most cities around the country.

We've also tried our best to work with Labor to secure changes to investor tax concessions that could see up to 770,000 renters become homeowners, but, like I said earlier, we have come to a point where Labor doesn't want to do anything more than just tinker around the edges. So here we are. But we will make one more attempt to make this bill better. That's what these amendments are about.

Through amendment (1) on sheet 3160 we are trying to secure changes that would encourage the affordable well-located medium-density housing our cities need that isn't being delivered. It is not being delivered by profit focused developers. We want to do that, rather than simply having an inflationary effect on the cost of existing housing and new-build suburban sprawl. This amendment would require Housing Australia to prioritise properties for the Help to Buy program that support the delivery of new affordable homes in medium- and high-density locations that are close to public housing. This would ensure that this bill delivers the housing that we need, rather than simply driving up the prices of existing homes. If the government were serious about delivering on the housing crisis and ensuring that the bill is fit for purpose, then they would support this amendment.

The second amendment prohibits the minister from directing that a participant in the Help to Buy program must repay the government share of their homes if they exceed the income threshold, following their successful entry into the program. The income thresholds are already so low. If the bill passes as is, participants may be penalised for changed circumstances, even after they have been able to buy a property. This income trap is really unfair. This amendment would ensure that Help to Buy homes remain affordable throughout the buyer's lifetime, without penalties for people going through any changing circumstances. I commend both the amendments to the Senate.

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

I indicate that we will not be supporting this bill or these amendments. The reason for that is that we believe that the government, having presided over a massive collapse in housing construction—from as high as 220,000 houses in 2018 down to 160,000 houses this year, the same amount of houses that we had in 1989 when the population was just 17 million—has created a terrible situation for so many, particularly younger, Australians—millennials, gen Z—who feel that the Australian dream is out of reach for them. A large part of that is because of the collapse in housing construction. It's very hard to solve this problem of housing—we all care about housing—unless you get the houses built. Ultimately, the numbers don't lie. We're down to 160,000 houses this year. So we are in a terrible position in this country on the supply side. The government, seemingly having given up on supply, now wants us to consider a demand-side bill for which no modelling has been done by the government on its impact and which is very clearly only going to work at the absolute margins for very few people.

These shared-equity schemes have been massively unpopular for cultural reasons. Australians do not want to co-own their house with any government, and the reason that these schemes have been so unpopular at the state and territory level is all the problems that that proposes. The Australian dream is not about co-owning your house with Mr Albanese or any government.

These shared-equity schemes have been undersubscribed at the state level, and so the idea that the Commonwealth would come in now and seek to put in place a shared-equity scheme as their only demand-side measure, without any other consideration of other demand-side policies that they may be able to deploy to support what is ultimately a supply challenge, is very regrettable. So we are opposed to the Help to Buy Bill for cultural reasons. But we are also opposed to it because it is not very imaginative. There are other things that the government could have done to help people with a deposit. They could have opened up superannuation, but they don't want to do that because that doesn't suit their vested interests. They could have looked at the lending laws. It's pretty hard to get a first house without a mortgage, but they haven't bothered to look at the mortgage rules. This is their only policy.

As we traversed this at Senate estimates with Senator Gallagher, the Minister for Finance, she made it very clear that this is the government's only demand-side policy. This is it—a friendless shared-equity scheme, one that will cost the Commonwealth $5.5 billion and offer a maximum of 40,000 places. To give you an idea of the scale of the problem, we need to be building about a quarter of a million houses a year in this country. This is a tiny but very expensive scheme which has already proven to be very unpopular.

I indicate that we will be opposing this bill. We will be opposing all of the amendments in this debate, and I look forward to asking some questions now we're in committee of the whole. I might see if others want to make a contribution before I do that.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have questions. I asked three questions in my speech in the second reading debate. My first question goes to the minister. It seems that the government will essentially become the second mortgagor to a bank on a home loan. In the event of a default or price fall, is a bank entitled to recover all of its losses before the government recovers any money, due to this priority? Secondly, what is the priority of security the government holds compared to the bank mortgage?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will go back to Senator Faruqi's amendments and then come back to open and broad debate.

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

The government will not be supporting either of the amendments from the Greens. I'll go into further detail if required, but the basis for this is that the legislation must match the legislation in the states and the territories for it to be properly founded. That makes the referral of powers valid and ensures that the legislation is constitutional. The legislation already passed in Queensland earlier this year. So, as a matter of process, that means that the government is unable to support that amendment. However, on the substance, we believe that Australians should have housing choices. If Australians want to live next to a train station close to the city or on a farm in the bush, that's their choice. It's not a choice for government.

In relation to the second amendment, we have the same objection—that is, the legislation has already been passed in Queensland, and the government wants to ensure that the referral of powers is valid and constitutional.

However, on the substance of the proposition that sits behind the amendment, it is a matter for ministerial program directions, not the legislation before the Senate right now. The program directions make it very clear that, if a participant earns above the income caps and cannot pay the government's share, they won't be required to. But, if someone can—for example, if someone earns a million dollars—we should expect them to start to pay back the taxpayer and expect this money to be recycled through the scheme to support other low- and middle-income Australians. Section 36(11) of the program directions notes that 'Housing Australia may not seek payment in certain circumstances' after considering 'the participant's personal circumstance and financial capacity'.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Australian Greens' amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3160 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

Shall I respond to Senator Roberts's question?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That would be helpful.

There are two questions, I think, sitting in Senator Roberts's question. Will the government own people's homes or will the government be on the title? The answer to that is very straightforward. Contrary to Senator Bragg's political assertion, the government will not be a co-owner of scheme properties and will not be on the title; rather, the government's contribution in participants' homes will be secured through a second mortgage. The government's interest is more akin to a private mortgage holder. Help to Buy applicants will need to be approved for a mortgage with a lender participating in the scheme. That is the role that lenders will have in the Help to Buy scheme. Lenders will manage those mortgages just as they typically do with other home loans.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. Just to confirm, the bank or the lender would be the first mortgagor and the government would be the second?

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

Yes, that's exactly right, and there are, of course, other arrangements that people have in the private sector that that will look very similar—that is, for the participant, the relationship with the approved lender and the second mortgage will be exactly the same as other Australians have, but there will be a lower mortgage threshold and lower repayments for that group of Australians who satisfy the criteria.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the event of a default or price fall, is the bank entitled to recover its losses before the government does? That would seem to be the case.

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

Yes. Just like in an arrangement that you might have or any other Queenslander might have with their lender, there are shared risks and shared benefits.

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

Minister, can I take you to the price caps. What is the price cap in Sydney?

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

In Sydney, for the capital city and for regional centres, the price cap will be $950,000.

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

What does the median dwelling cost in New South Wales?

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

I think I heard you say it earlier, and I think you said $1.2 million in terms of Sydney properties. Certainly, the median price is above the price cap for this scheme.

It is directed towards properties that are more affordable. I think that's what Australians would expect for a scheme of this nature.

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

Minister, what is the Help to Buy cap in Queensland—Brisbane?

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

For Queensland—for its capital, Brisbane, and for regional centres—the price cap will be $700,000.

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

Thank you. And what is the median dwelling price in Queensland?

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

I don't have the median dwelling prices for Brisbane or Queensland in front of me, but you can take it from each of the examples that you have taken me to, or may intend to take me to, that the median prices are almost certainly higher than the price cap contained in this scheme, for the reasons that I set out earlier.

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

Is the government concerned that the cap on this scheme is so low, in some cases 20 per cent below the median dwelling price, that this is not a product that is going to be available in any way to the average income earner?

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

Could I make a couple of observations. Firstly, for first home buyers in, for example, Sydney's suburbs the prices that first home buyers pay for homes are, as you would expect, lower than the median price. That's the first point.

The second point is that this scheme is aimed at supporting Australians to achieve ownership by enabling them to purchase moderately priced homes—that is, it is not designed for the top end of the market—and the property price caps reflect that objective of the scheme. Of course, they will need to be adjusted over time, and the scheme of the legislation allows that to happen as the market in Australian real estate develops.

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

The scheme is not designed for the top end of town, but it's also not designed for the average income earner, is it?

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

This scheme is certainly targeted for nurses and teachers and people who work in our police services or in retail. They may not be people who the Liberal Party of Australia cares about, but, under this scheme, every year 10,000 of them will have a more affordable deposit and a more affordable mortgage. In the suburbs of Sydney, if you are a retail worker or you work as a storeman and packer or you're in a moderate- or low-income job—perhaps two of you in your family—what you know is that this scheme is there for 10,000 people just like you and that it offers a benefit for a targeted part of the Australian market. It is not designed to deal with the big challenges in the supply of housing, and all of those questions that the rest of the government's housing scheme is directed towards—albeit, I understand, you and the Liberals and Mr Dutton oppose all of it, consistent with a pattern of no action over a decade. It is designed to support Australians who want to purchase moderately priced homes.

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

Minister, the research organisation PropTrack found that, in relation to these Help to Buy caps in Sydney, a Sydneysider would be unable to purchase 96 per cent of the homes using the Help to Buy scheme. What does the government say in relation to this data? It doesn't seem to be targeted at the average income earner. It doesn't seem to be targeted, almost, at anyone.

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

The average first home buyer purchase is $480,000. Compared to the median, that's quite a moderate figure. That is the average for first home purchases in Australia. There are people who have purchased a home before who, because of their work experiences or otherwise, will struggle to purchase a home and would be eligible for this scheme, but it is, of course, directed towards low- and moderate-income Australians who can pay a mortgage and assemble a deposit but not at the level that they would be required to in the private market. This provides a leg-up for, as I said, the nurses and teachers and police and retail workers and truck drivers of Australia.

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

I might just ask you to clarify whether that was an average figure you were using across Australia or whether that was a Sydney figure.

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

An average figure for Australia under the previous government's Home Guarantee Scheme was $480,000, if I can offer that clarity.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, if the government says it's such a good idea, why does it only go for four years and end? Secondly, I know we've only got a few minutes left of this, but, coming to the end of your government's first term, why haven't we had a national housing and homelessness plan yet?

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

If I can approach that first question first, Senator Pocock, the objective of 10,000 homes per year is set out over the forwards. The government, should we be re-elected—because, if Mr Dutton is elected, that will be the end of the hopes and dreams of schoolteachers, nurses, retail workers and truck drivers to have the government support their ambition for them and their families and their children to stable homeownership in the Australian real estate market. That would be the end. A Dutton prime ministership would go back to the same old sitting on the hands, no action, driving the housing industry off a cliff in terms of capacity. This government, should we be re-elected with this scheme in operation, will watch it closely. In the event that we can support extending it based upon the performance of the program, of course, it's open to the government to do that. As the government starts to achieve a return as money is reinvested, that will provide a basis for further confidence in the further operation of the scheme.

This government, if I can deal with your second question, has a very bold set of propositions on housing reform. It is opposed by Mr Dutton and Mr Joyce and whoever else there is in what passes for the leadership of the Liberals and Nationals at the moment. There is a scheme there, a set of schemes that are very ambitious and a set of targets that are directed towards the supply of housing.

Of course, I hope that we will get to traverse these in Senate estimates over the coming years as you test us out on the performance of some of these measures over time.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Minister. You dodged my question on why you don't have a national housing and homelessness plan. You committed to one. You've been doing ongoing consultation for months and months. It seems pretty convenient that we're in the last sitting week of the term, and there's still no plan, yet you're willing to cook up other legislation in a matter of weeks and ram it through this place. But on something so fundamental as housing and on having a plan to get us out of this hole that is thanks to the duopoly, thanks to the major parties—absolutely, the coalition have to take a lot of the blame for basically vacating this space, cooking up HomeBuilder, overcooking the building market. Now, under Labor, we've seen approvals go off an absolute cliff. Where is the plan? Why are you averse to putting one forward?

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

I'm advised by the team here that a document to which you're directing your comments will be provided in good time before the next election. But a plan in and of itself sits alongside action. We have come off the back of a decade of inaction—no public housing being built and no social housing being built for a wasted decade. TAFE training was driven into the ground by this show, by the Liberals and Nationals. All of the capacity constraints were made worse and worse and worse and worse, and there was no cooperation with the states and territories—zero meetings with the states and territories over five long years. Mr Morrison and Mr Dutton pointed the finger of blame, but there was no cooperation on those questions. They say that it all went okay when they were in government. It's a bit like saying that the Rabbitohs went okay in 2014 because I was jogging around the Block in those days. It's just nonsense.

This show did nothing for a decade. We are turning that ship around with a very bold and ambitious program, and much of it is directed to housing supply. The negative Nancies over there who say no and are obsessed with negativity will of course say Australians can't achieve these targets. We say that cooperation with the states and territories and partnerships with private industry, the investment community—including Senator Bragg's enemies in the investment community and superannuation community—and the building industry is the work, led by a Labor government, that will produce results. This program is directed towards supporting 10,000 Australians every year to get a leg up.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can see why the major parties are trying to stitch up electoral reform, when your best pitch to voters is, 'We're not as bad as the coalition.' Starting with a plan seems the logical place, for me. It's really disappointing that, after the promise to have a plan, almost three years later you're saying, 'We're still working on it, and we hope to take it to the election.' I'm interested, if you have the data on you, in how many properties there are currently for sale in the ACT that someone on $90,000 would be able to buy under this scheme, given you were talking about teachers and nurses et cetera.

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

We don't have that figure to provide to you today. The answer is that there needs to be more. This scheme provides for 10,000 Australians, including people lucky enough to live in the ACT and to have access to moderately priced homes with support from the government. I don't think any sensible person could oppose that proposition. It must of course be supplemented by the broader measures the government is undertaking in terms of housing supply, and that is going to involve an enormous cooperative effort not just from the Commonwealth government but from the states and territories, private industry, the development community and the investment community. That is the serious work the government is engaged in.

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

Minister, how many of the states and territories have passed the requisite legislation to enact the scheme?

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

The great state of Queensland has passed legislation, and all the states have indicated in-principle support for the Help to Buy legislation package and whatever enabling legislation is required.

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

So one state has passed the enabling legislation. Does the government have a view on why the scheme hasn't been more popular, given there have been shared-equity schemes available in various states and territories? Why have they been undersubscribed?

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

The first point is that Australians have been waiting for this Senate to do its job and pass the legislation, and delays have consequences for ordinary people. It might not have consequences for people in this place. It has consequences if you're a nurse or a teacher trying to get a house; it has had consequences for 10,000 of them.

Secondly, I assume states and territories, with the passage of this legislation and the certainty that that provides, will not want their citizens locked out of capacity to access the scheme. Thirdly, while there are other similar schemes in some of the states and territories—I'm advised that in Western Australia 100,000 people, over time, have benefited from a similar scheme, though it doesn't have exactly the same architecture—the states and territories will be very keen to make sure that New South Wales people, Victorians, South Australians, Western Australians and Tasmanians all have access to this scheme.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, the income thresholds are set at $90,000 for singles and $120,000 for married couples. This is set nationally, despite the average house price varying from $504,000 in Darwin to $1.2 million in Sydney. My first question is: why are you not adjusting the income threshold from state to state?

My second question is: if an Australian who enters into the Help to Buy arrangement, where the government owns part of their home, renovates their home at their own expense, spending sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours swinging hammers and pulling up carpet, and as a result of their renovations their $500,000 home increases in value to $600,000, how much of that Australian's renovation profit will the government take for doing nothing?

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

In what I calculate to be a very short amount of time, I will try and answer both those questions like an auctioneer—and more people will be able to go to auctions and bid successfully at auctions because of this scheme.

If I can answer in reverse order: the scheme manages that issue. If participants do renovations to their homes, those renovations will be valued and they will reap the benefit of those renovations. That is very clear in terms of the ministerial direction and the scheme.

You're right that the relative position of income thresholds means different things in different states. It is a different position. However, the scheme must be simple to manage. Reluctant as I am to venture a bush lawyer's opinion, I think constitutionally it's more sound if it's consistent across the Commonwealth.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 1 pm, pursuant to the order agreed to on 18 September 2024, the time for consideration of these bills has expired. I will now deal with the remaining Committee of the Whole amendments to the Help to Buy Bill 2023, starting with the amendment circulated by the government. The question is that the government amendments on sheet PC106 be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 34, page 24 (line 28), omit "subsections 42(1) to (3)", substitute "section 41, 41A or 42".

(2) Clause 34, page 24 (lines 29 to 31), omit the note.

(3) Clause 42, page 29 (line 21) to page 32 (line 7), omit the clause, substitute:

41A When Help to Buy program does not apply — exclusion by law of State or Territory

(1) This section applies if a law of a participating State, a cooperating State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory declares a matter to be an excluded matter for the purposes of this section in relation to:

(a) the whole of the Help to Buy program; or

(b) a specified provision of the Help to Buy program; or

(c) the Help to Buy program, other than a specified provision; or

(d) the Help to Buy program, otherwise than to a specified extent.

(2) The Help to Buy program, other than the provisions mentioned in section 42B, does not apply in relation to the excluded matter to the extent provided by the declaration.

Note: This subsection has effect subject to subsection (3) and section 42C.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a declaration to the extent (if any) prescribed by the regulations.

Note: See also section 42A (when declarations and regulations may take effect).

42 Avoiding inconsistency with State and Territory laws

(1) This section has effect despite anything else in the Help to Buy program.

(2) Subsection (4) does not apply to a provision of a law of a State or Territory that is capable of concurrent operation with the Help to Buy program.

Note: This kind of provision is dealt with by section 41.

(3) Subsection (4) applies to the interaction between:

(a) a provision of a law of a participating State, a cooperating State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory (the displacement provision); and

(b) a provision of the Help to Buy program (the Commonwealth provision), other than a provision mentioned in section 42B;

only if the displacement provision is declared by a law of the State or Territory to be a Help to Buy program displacement provision for the purposes of this section (either generally or specifically in relation to the Commonwealth provision).

(4) The Commonwealth provision does not operate in, or in relation to, the State or Territory to the extent necessary to ensure that no inconsistency arises between:

(a) the Commonwealth provision; and

(b) the displacement provision to the extent to which the displacement provision would, apart from this subsection, be inconsistent with the Commonwealth provision.

Note 1: The operation of the displacement provision will be supported by section 41 to the extent to which it can operate concurrently with the Commonwealth provision.

Note 2: This subsection has effect subject to subsection (5) and section 42C.

(5) Subsection (4) does not apply in relation to the displacement provision to the extent to which the regulations provide that the subsection does not apply in relation to the displacement provision.

Note: See also section 42A (when declarations and regulations may take effect).

42A Declarations and regulations

Declarations

(1) For the purposes of this Subdivision, a declaration by a law of a State or Territory (the declaring law) that:

(a) a matter is an excluded matter for the purposes of section 41A; or

(b) a provision of a law of the State or Territory is a Help to Buy program displacement provision for the purposes of section 42;

takes effect at the later of the following times, if the declaration would otherwise take effect before that time:

(c) the commencement of this Act;

(d) when the declaring law is enacted or made.

Regulations

(2) Subsection 12(2) of the Legislation Act 2003 (retrospective application) does not apply in relation to regulations made for the purposes of subsection 41A(3) or 42(5) of this Act.

(3) Section 46 (approval of States and Territories required for regulations) does not apply in relation to regulations made for the purposes of subsection 41A(3) or 42(5).

42B Excluded provisions

A reference in subsection 41A(2) or 42(3) of this Act to the Help to Buy program does not include a reference to:

(a) Part 4 of this Act (finance); or

(b) this Division; or

(c) Division 3 of this Part (other miscellaneous matters); or

(d) regulations made for the purposes of a provision mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this section; or

(e) a legislative instrument (other than regulations) made under a provision mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).

42C Preservation of Commonwealth entitlement and security

(1) If:

(a) disregarding sections 41A and 42 and this section, Housing Australia, on behalf of the Commonwealth:

(i) is entitled under a Help to Buy arrangement to a return on a contribution made under the Help to Buy arrangement; or

(ii) under a Help to Buy arrangement, secures such an entitlement by means of a mortgage or other right relating to a residential property; and

(b) apart from this subsection, an effect of section 41A or 42 would be:

(i) that Housing Australia is not entitled to that return, or does not secure that entitlement in that way; or

(ii) to diminish or restrict that entitlement or security or Housing Australia's functions or powers in relation to that entitlement or security;

section 41A or 42 does not apply to the extent that it would otherwise have the effect described in paragraph (b) of this subsection.

(2) To avoid doubt, in subsection (1):

(a) a reference to a Help to Buy arrangement includes a reference to a Help to Buy arrangement that Housing Australia would be taken to have entered into if section 41A or 42 were disregarded; and

(b) a reference to a contribution made under a Help to Buy arrangement includes a reference to a contribution Housing Australia would be taken to have made, on behalf of the Commonwealth, under a Help to Buy arrangement if section 41A or 42 were disregarded; and

(c) a reference to Housing Australia's functions or powers in relation to an entitlement or security includes a reference to Housing Australia's functions or powers in relation to a Help to Buy arrangement, to the extent that the Help to Buy arrangement relates to the entitlement or security.

42D Modification of Help to Buy program

(1) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, modify the operation of the Help to Buy program if the Minister is satisfied that modification is necessary or desirable because of the effect of section 41A or 42 on the operation of a provision of the Help to Buy program.

(2) To avoid doubt:

(a) without limiting subsection (1) of this section, the Minister may make an instrument under that subsection because of an effect that section 41A or 42 might or will have in the future; and

(b) a modification made by such an instrument must not commence before section 41A or 42 begins to have that effect.

(3) To avoid doubt, a legislative instrument made under subsection (1) of this section may not do the following:

(a) create an offence or civil penalty;

(b) provide powers of:

(i) arrest or detention; or

(ii) entry, search or seizure;

(c) impose a tax;

(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;

(e) directly amend the text of this Act;

(f) substantively remove or override section 41A or 42.

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

The question is that the amendments on sheets 2850 and 2851, as circulated by Senators David Pocock, Lambie and Van, be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock 's , the Jacqui Lambie Network 's and Senator Van's circulated amendments

SHEET 2850

(1) Clause 45, page 33 (after line 22), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the extent to which the operation of the Help to Buy program has:

(a) assisted in enabling access to home ownership for those otherwise likely to have been permanently excluded from home ownership; and

(b) assisted in enabling access to home ownership more quickly than likely to have been achieved without the Help to Buy program; and

(c) effectively integrated with other Commonwealth, state and territory first home buyer assistance programs, as envisaged in the National Housing and Homelessness Plan.

_____

SHEET 2851

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 13 to 18), omit the clause, substitute:

3 Object of this Act

The object of this Act is to give Housing Australia the function of entering into shared equity arrangements on behalf of the Commonwealth in relation to residential property to improve housing outcomes for as many Australians as possible by assisting low-income and middle-income individuals to buy homes, with a particular focus on improving housing outcomes for historically disadvantaged Australians including older women and First Nations peoples, and to enable individuals facing mortgage repossession and possible homelessness to remain in home ownership.

(2) Clause 25, page 17 (lines 14 to 17), omit paragraphs (2)(a) and (b).

(3) Clause 25, page 17 (after line 21), after subclause 25(2), insert:

(2A) Without limiting subsection (1), the Help to Buy Program Directions must include directions about the following matters relating to Help to Buy arrangements:

(a) a requirement for Housing Australia to enter into, as far as practicable, a minimum of 30,000 Help to Buy arrangements in each financial year;

(b) a requirement for Housing Australia to ensure, as far as practicable, that at least one third of the total number of Help to Buy arrangements in each financial year are entered into with older women or First Nations peoples.

(4) Clause 26, page 18 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) The Minister must not give a direction under paragraph 24(1)(a) that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of directly or indirectly limiting:

(a) the period during which Housing Australia may enter into Help to Buy arrangements; or

(b) the total number of residential properties in relation to which Housing Australia may enter into Help to Buy arrangements.

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

I will now deal with the amendments to the Help to Buy Bill 2023 circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that the amendments on sheet 2902 circulated by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 24, page 16 (after line 27), at the end of the clause, add:

(5) The first instrument made under subsection (1) must include a direction about the matter covered by subsection 25(2A).

Note: The instrument may also include directions about other matters.

(2) Clause 25, page 17 (after line 21), after subclause (2), insert:

Priority Help to Buy arrangements

(2A) The matter covered by this subsection is the prioritisation by Housing Australia of Help to Buy arrangements that are for the benefit of persons who are one or more of the following:

(a) a person with disability;

(b) a First Nations person;

(c) an older woman;

so that the following occurs:

(d) 10% of Help to Buy arrangements entered into (not including the arrangements covered by paragraph (e) or (f)) are for the benefit of persons with disability;

(e) 10% of Help to Buy arrangements entered into (not including the arrangements covered by paragraph (d) or (f)) are for the benefit of First Nations persons;

(f) 10% of Help to Buy arrangements entered into (not including the arrangements covered by paragraph (d) or (e)) are for the benefit of older women.

(2B) A direction about the matter covered by subsection (2A) must set out the criteria for prioritising Help to Buy arrangements as outlined in that subsection.