|
representatives vote 2024-02-28#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-03-07 18:49:58
|
Title
Bills — Help to Buy Bill 2023, Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023; Second Reading- Help to Buy Bill 2023 and Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 - Second Reading - Agree with the bills
Description
<p class="speaker">Ross Vasta</p><p>I rise to speak on the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023. Many Australians dream of owning their own home; to establish themselves, put down roots and care for something that is theirs. A home provides security and stability; it's a place to raise kids and retire. Home ownership was once a reasonable aspiration, but today we are, sadly, seeing a different narrative play out. Families around Australia are hurting. Every day Bonner locals contact my office seeking assistance to combat the increasing cost-of-living pressures. Australians need relief. Unfortunately, in the midst of a housing crisis, the underwhelming Help to Buy scheme is too little too late.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-02-28.115.9) to agree with the main idea of the bills. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to give the bills a second reading. Our MPs can now consider them in greater detail.
- ### What do these bills do?
- According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2324a/24bd41) (which is an overview of the bills prepared by the parliamentary library):
- > * *The [Help to Buy Bill 2023](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r7123) and the [Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r7124) establish the framework for a new national shared equity program – called the Help to Buy program – aimed at assisting low to middle income earners to purchase new or existing homes by accessing an equity contribution from the Commonwealth.*
- >
- > * *Housing Australia will administer Help to Buy and states will ‘opt in’ to participate in the scheme by either a referral under section 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution, or adoption of the Commonwealth legislation. Section 122 of the Constitution enables Commonwealth operation of the program in the territories.*
- >
- > * *Under a ‘Help to Buy’ arrangement, Housing Australia (on behalf of the Commonwealth) will enter into a contract with eligible purchasers to contribute part of the purchase price of a residence.*
- >
- > * *The Commonwealth’s equity contribution of up to either 30 or 40 per cent of the purchase price (depending on whether the property is new) will be recognised as a second mortgage or other right secured against the property. Thus the Government will own that share in the property. This equity contribution is intended to lower a borrower’s monthly repayments.*
- >
- > * *Help to Buy will be open to up to 10,000 eligible purchasers per year, assisting up to 40,000 households to make a home purchase affordable.*
- >
- > * *Homebuyers will need a minimum 2 per cent deposit to participate and will qualify for a standard home loan (with no need for lenders mortgage insurance).*
- >
- > * *While alluded to in Australian Labor Party policy documents, many of the details of the Help to Buy Program – including the upper limit of Commonwealth contribution and minimum deposit requirements – will be found in the Program Directions, a legislative instrument not subject to disallowance and exempt from sunsetting. Consultation with states and territories on the Program Directions can begin prior to commencement of the Bill, to support timely operation of the Bill.*
- >
- > * *Key concerns raised about shared equity schemes as a policy for tackling housing affordability are that they may contribute to further growth in house prices, that they may encourage those for whom home ownership may not be the most suitable option to take on undue financial risk, and that they divert resources from supporting people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness (including because of rental stress).*
- >
- > * *On the other hand, key interest groups have expressed support for shared equity schemes as a vehicle for assisting people in overcoming barriers to home ownership. For instance, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) has predicted, based on microsimulation modelling, that a well-designed national shared equity scheme has the potential to assist a large number of eligible aspiring first home buyers.*
<p>Last week I hosted a mobile office at Carindale shopping centre. Locals shared with me the housing market situation and their financial security, that was causing disappointment and fear. One resident, a grandmother, said that she doubts that her grandchildren will ever be able to own their own home when everyone is struggling to pay for groceries.</p><p>As I continue to fight for financial literacy to be included in the national curriculum, I have spoken to many students, mums and dads about home ownership. Throughout Bonner, there is a resounding disappointment coming from residents who cannot foresee themselves owning a home. While 85 per cent of renters aspire to own their own home, younger Australians are beginning to lose any hope of actually purchasing their own home. A local university student told me that, as a young person, buying a home is just so far away. He said that home ownership is more of a pipedream.</p><p>Buying your first home is about accomplishment, responsibility and reward. Help to Buy is a small, niche program open to only 10,000 households each financial year, and it will cost the Commonwealth a disappointing $5.5 billion. Given that there are over 16,000 rental households in Bonner alone, this program does not serve the many more Aussies who want to buy.</p><p>Under the scheme, owners will be responsible for all the repairs and all the maintenance on their hard-earned new home. However, when it comes time to sell, the government will be able to take 40 per cent of profits. That's after years of appreciation on the property when you sell it. Furthermore, help-to-buy schemes already exist in many states. However, they are so unwanted by Aussies that there are still places remaining in many of the state based schemes. For example, New South Wales' shared-equity scheme is so unwanted that 94 per cent of its places are still available. Disappointingly, a similar scheme in the UK was found to inflate prices by more than its subsidy value in areas where it was needed the most.</p><p>We need policies that empower Australians to own their own home. We need policies that ensure families keep their hard-earned profits in their pockets and reward those who take the initiative. When elected, the Labor government promised that this policy would be in place by 1 January 2023. After waiting over 20 months for this legislation, we are only just having this policy put through the House. This policy is just one of the many examples of a broken promise where Australians are being left behind.</p><p>The only housing policies delivering support to first home buyers are the housing policies that Labor inherited from the former coalition government. Under the coalition, first home owners reached their highest levels in almost 15 years. It has been great to see that, over the last three years, the coalition housing policies have supported more than 300,000 Australians with the purchase of a home. Our home guarantee schemes have assisted almost 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families to get into a home of their own with a deposit of as little as five per cent. Our HomeBuilder scheme protected the residential construction industry with more than 137,000 HomeBuilder applications generating $120 billion of economic activity. Our First Home Super Saver Scheme delivered relief on the deposit hurdle by increasing the release amount to $50,000 from $30,000. This means the average couple would be $20,838 better off under the coalition's First Home Super Saver Scheme than if they saved in a standard saving account. The message from Bonner locals is clear: they want to own their own homes. To quote a Rochedale resident who I spoke with before Christmas, 'This proposal is nothing to write home about!'</p><p>We need a government who will empower Aussies to confidently enter the housing market. The scheme is too little, too niche and too underwhelming. Those who want to buy a home want to own it themselves; they don't want the government owning a portion. We need to be empowering and supporting Australians as they aspire to accomplish homeownership, to reap the full reward and satisfaction of their hard work.</p> <p class="speaker">Zoe McKenzie</p><p>I rise to speak on this cognate debate concerning the Help to Buy Bill 2023 and the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, the bills that give the government a share in your home! This announcement was made during the 2022 election campaign. I remember, at the time, it sounded a bit nutty to me—so nutty I thought we might never actually see it in this place. But, almost two full years later, here it is—sort of. When he announced it, the Prime Minister promised it would start on 1 January 2023. That was 14 months ago. If we are lucky, maybe someone will co-own a home with Albo by the start of 2025.</p> <p class="speaker">Sharon Claydon</p><p>The member for Flinders, you do need to use correct titles when referring to members of the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Zoe McKenzie</p><p>If we are lucky, maybe somebody will co-own a home with the government by the start of 2025. Until then, it will fall into the cupboard of all the Prime Minister's deferred and displaced election promises—for example, that energy bills will go down by $275, which I think we got promised 97 times, or that they will implement stage 3 tax cuts in full, which we got promised about 100 times. But, then again, if I must think a bit more about promises closer to home, there was also that promise to build Baxter Rail. I can't help but read that one out, because, with the Dunkley by-election on Saturday, where our wonderful candidate, Nathan Conroy, will seek the trust and support of the people of Dunkley, voters should remember that the Prime Minister has some form when it comes to breaking promises in our region. On 31 July 2018, the press release said Labor will deliver the Frankston to Baxter rail upgrade, stating:</p><p class="italic">A Shorten Labor Government will move quickly to deliver the much-needed Frankston to Baxter Rail Upgrade, building on the significant investment the Andrews Labor Government has made in Frankston infrastructure.</p> <p class="speaker">Sharon Claydon</p><p>Mr Giles, on a point of order?</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Giles</p><p>The point of order is if the member could speak to the bills which are before the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Zoe McKenzie</p><p>Federal Labor is an advocate of the electrification and duplication of the Stony Point line to Baxter to improve train services for commuters across Dunkley and on the Mornington Peninsula.</p> <p class="speaker">Sharon Claydon</p><p>You are stretching the relevance, from what I hear. You do need to get quickly back to the Help to Buy bill.</p> <p class="speaker">Zoe McKenzie</p><p>I will. The press release also said:</p><p class="italic">A Federal Labor Government will electrify and duplicate the track to Baxter, giving commuters better access to high quality public transport and park-and-ride options</p><p>The press release goes on for a few more paragraphs, making wonderful promises to do better for the people of my region, to make good on a promise that was actually made by the wonderful dear friend to many of us in this place, the former member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy, who concluded:</p><p class="italic">Only a Federal Labor Government will make sure that the extension of the line to Baxter, benefiting residents in Frankston and the Peninsula, becomes a reality.</p><p>Of course, the Albanese Labor government cancelled that rail project in their 90-day, revised to a 200-day, review of infrastructure last year, together with the much sought after overpass, a jetty road in Rosebud. So it should be no surprise that when you look at the detail of this particular bill that you find a bit of the old bait-and-switch built into the offer.</p><p>Firstly, only 10,000 households can be helped each year. It is limited to people who earn less than $90,000 a year or $120,000 for a couple, even though we know people need to earn infinitely more than that just to buy an entry-level home or apartment in my electorate. It is limited in terms of purchase price, for example, to $850,000 in metro Melbourne and $550,000 for the rest of the state of Victoria. And to ensure its availability, states actually need to opt in, even though we already know similar schemes in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia are undersubscribed at the moment. So why would those states opt in unless attempting to simply cost shift while benefiting no new prospective homebuyers? More detail will come in time about the program direction, so we don't quite know yet whether the Commonwealth will cap its contribution, nor how they might treat, for example, the value of any improvements that other homeowners may make to the property.</p><p>But most important to me in this bill is that I can reasonably deduce that it will help precisely nobody in my electorate of Flinders. Why? In a nutshell, the median price of a home in my electorate today is $1.13 million and as we saw on the front page of <i>The Age</i> today, you need to earn $220,000 a year to be able to afford such a home—that is, I should point out, a 40 per cent rise on just four years ago. So what you need to earn to afford a house in my electorate of Flinders is quite daunting. For example, if you want a house in Bittern, the average price there is $861,000 and the income you require just to be in the game is $170,000. A house in Capel Sound for $734,000 to buy requires income of $144,000. In Crib Point, a house will cost you in the order of $770,000 and require an income of $151,000. In Hastings, a house will be around $700,000 and require you to earn around $140,000; Pearcedale, almost $1 million, $915,000, requiring an income of about $180,000 a year. And in Somerville, where my electorate office is, a house will set you back about $810,000, needing an income of almost $160,000.</p><p>It shouldn't be lost on anyone listening from my electorate at this time that these are exactly the people who were recently punished by the changes to the stage 3 tax cuts. I listened to some of the government speeches on this bill yesterday in this chamber and I was floored to hear some of them mention the magical word 'aspiration'. Perhaps it was only to distinguish themselves from the next-level lecturing from the Australian Greens and their utter disdain for those who work hard and invest in property and, in doing so, create homes in the form of rental properties for others. But it is fair to say that talk of aspiration sits uncomfortably in the mouths of those sitting opposite after they abolished the most meaningful reform to personal income tax that has been attempted in the last decade, one which should have addressed racket creep and would not have cost Australian an additional $28 billion more in income tax over the next decade—that is, $28 billion more over the next decade.</p><p>It is perhaps no surprise then that the economic hero of the modern Labor Party, the man whose politics are the stuff of which today's Treasurer's doctorate is made, Paul Keating, in a marvellous and long interview with Michael Stutchbury, reflecting on his 80 years of life, was described as commenting as follows:</p><p class="italic">While seeking to keep out of current tax policy controversies, he says the top personal income tax should be no higher than 39 per cent, compared with the current 45 per cent rate (plus the 2 per cent Medicare levy).</p><p>And he quotes the mighty PJK:</p><p class="italic">"There's an issue that all societies should have of how much a person's conscientious efforts and wealth should be delivered to the state," he says.</p><p class="italic">"Once you start getting the top rate over, in my opinion, 39 [per cent], it becomes confiscatory and when they become confiscatory you just lose all that impetus to make a dollar and do clever things."</p><p>That's nicely said.</p><p>We know he's not the only one who gets it. Some clever work done by Sky News political editor, Andrew Clennell, dug up the old Kevin Rudd plan for tax reform, one which you might say can be classed in the category of aspiration of which those opposite were speaking yesterday. Andrew Clennell reminded us in the first week of February that, upon a time, the Rudd government aspired to install a new tax system, by 2013-14, in which there would only be three tax brackets. The 45c rate would drop to 40c, and the 40c rate would drop to 37c, on its way to 30c. Well, my, how the Labor Party has lost its way. Now it punishes those who earn more than $130,000—</p> <p class="speaker">Maria Vamvakinou</p><p>The member for Flinders will pause. The minister has the call on a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Julie Collins</p><p>Could I bring the member back to the bill. She seems to be straying far from the bill.</p> <p class="speaker">Maria Vamvakinou</p><p>Can I ask that the member for Flinders remain relevant to the context of the bill at hand.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|