Wendy Askew

As the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 563 (the order) agreed to by the Senate on 13 August 2024, requiring the tabling of reports prepared by external consultants engaged by the Commonwealth to identify planning reforms, was not complied with,

(ii) on 22 August and 9 October 2024, in response to the order, the Treasurer sought additional time to comply with the order,

(iii) on 8 November 2024, the Treasurer made a public interest immunity claim on the basis that the disclosure of the document would have the potential to cause prejudice to future consultation and harm relations between the Commonwealth and the states,

(iv) on 19 November 2024, motion no. 676 concerning compliance with the order was agreed to by the Senate, rejecting the public interest immunity claim and requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer (the minister) to comply by 5 pm on 20 November 2024, and

(v) the minister failed to comply with motion no. 676 on 20 November 2024, and has provided no explanation for this non- compliance; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to attend the Senate on Wednesday, 27 November 2024, at the conclusion of consideration of private senators' bills and immediately prior to government business being called on, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order and motion no. 676, and that:

(i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and

(ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 700, standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

Penny Allman-Payne

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 29 November 2024, all correspondence, meeting briefs and meeting notes held by the Australian Education Research Organisation relating to fundraising.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

The motion seeks documents belonging to the Australia Education Research Organisation. That organisation is legally constituted an independent entity. The Commonwealth does not hold these documents. Moreover, as AERO is jointly owned by the Commonwealth government and all state and territory governments, the Commonwealth is not able to release any such documents unilaterally.

Sue Lines

The question is general business notice of motion No. 698, standing in the name of Senator Allman-Payne, be agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie

I move:

(1) That the Senate—

(a) notes that the order for production of documents no. 657 made on 18 November 2024, for the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to provide by 2 pm on Thursday, 21 November 2024, the proposed wagering advertising reform model, dated 8 August 2024, and the wagering advertising reform consultation—schedule of questions, dated 30 July 2024, has not been complied with; and

(b) rejects the claim of public interest immunity made by the minister on 20 November 2024 on the basis that:

(i) it does not comply with the Senate's requirement that such a claim should provide sufficient detail about the actual harm that would be caused by providing the information, and

(ii) the Minister is now advancing a different claim that is inconsistent with the previous freedom of information decision for the same documents.

(2) That there be laid on the table by 2 pm on Wednesday, 27 November 2024, the documents so ordered in full compliance with the order made on 18 November 2024.

Jonathon Duniam

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Jonathon Duniam

The response to this order from the Minister for Communications represents a new low for the Albanese government when it comes to transparency. Either documents enjoy the protection of being cabinet documents and need that protection to be maintained or they're not and don't. This minister is applying a new and opaque set of words—that release of documents may 'pre-empt' cabinet deliberations. This PII claim is disrespectful to Senator Lambie and, of course, disrespectful of the Senate. This government's apparent commitment to transparency is so opaque it even has light bending around it!

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 697, standing in the name of Senator Lambie, be agreed to.

Gerard Rennick

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 4 February 2025, the following Australian Bureau of Statistics data for all deaths in Australia in 2021:

(a) date of death;

(b) date of last COVID-19 vaccination; and

(c) age.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 695, standing in the name of Senator Rennick, be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.

Andrew McLachlan

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.

Andrew McLachlan

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.

Tim Ayres

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

Mehreen Faruqi

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

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

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

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

Tim Ayres

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

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

Question negatived.

Tim Ayres

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long debate text truncated.

Lidia Thorpe

I move:

(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General statements which detail the expenditure by the Commonwealth on:

(a) funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services by state and territory, including funding allocations made by states and territories; and

(b) funding for National Family Violence Prevention Legal Service providers including funding allocations made by states and territories.

(2) That the statements are due not later than the tenth day after the end of the preceding three month period commencing 1 January, 1 April, 1 July, and 1 October.

(3) That each statement is to include:

(a) details of how this expenditure addresses any funding shortfalls predicted by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services and National Family Violence Prevention Legal Service providers, by state and territory; and

(b) an explanation of the purpose of the expenditure and the outcomes it is expected to deliver.

(4) That this order is of continuing effect.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Andrew McLachlan

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

The government will not be supporting this motion. The Prime Minister's significant announcement following National Cabinet in September demonstrates our government's commitment to access to justice. First ministers have signed a heads of agreement for a new National Access to Justice Partnership. This partnership will commence on 1 July 2025 and will deliver vital supports to all parts of the legal assistance sector, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services and family violence prevention legal services. The new $3.9 billion agreement is due to be finalised by the end of this month. It's the biggest Commonwealth commitment to legal assistance ever. The allocation of this new money will be finalised through the Standing Council of Attorneys-General very shortly. All of the information Senator Thorpe seeks through this motion can be accessed through Senate estimates, which renders this motion unnecessary.

Andrew McLachlan

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.

Sue Lines

We are doing the second reading on the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024, but there are a number of deferred motions; that's what we're dealing with at the moment. The first deferred motion is in the name of Senator Henderson. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Henderson be agreed to.