Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (11:06): It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to Senator Hume's private senator's bill, the Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025, which is the opposition's perspective on yet another suggestion to a Labor government bereft of solutions to Australia's housing crisis. There are no holds barred.

If you want to solve the housing crisis, we are here to help. Yes, it is a supply issue. This bill addresses the supply issue.

We're happy to help if you want to turn it into government legislation, and we can pass that today. But it's also a demand issue. A couple of weeks ago, in the productivity inquiry that the Senate's currently holding, we heard from Mike Pezzullo, the former secretary of Home Affairs, that we have a record high number of temporary visa holders in this country right now.

There are three million temporary visa holders in a population that's not even 30 million yet, so more than 10 per cent of our current population are temporary visa holders, all needing somewhere to live on a temporary basis. If Australians are wondering why rents are skyrocketing out of control, it's because there is increased demand on rental properties, particularly at that lower end of the market, and similarly with houses.

We've put a lot of suggestions on the table on how the government could seek to solve this issue, or at least put some downward pressure on demand, by getting their out-of-control immigration program under control and also by getting red tape out of the construction sector. We know that, when the housing construction code was put in place, it was a document of about yea thickness.

Now, I wouldn't even be able to fit the folders on my desk, with the amount of red tape that builders need to comply with in order to construct a home in this country. We know that in excess of 40 per cent of the cost of a new house and land build is local, state and federal government taxes. That's a fact.

If you want to know why young people can't get in to homes, it's because we've made it really hard. We've also got an economy where their take-home pay is either headed to state governments or Canberra, in terms of taxes, or out the door at the grocery aisle because of increased inflation. So their take-home pay is buying less and less each and every week.

GDP per capita under this government is in the toilet. That really just means that your pay packet isn't buying what it used to. Why?

It's because inflation is so high—and that's not because of the Middle East. The Reserve Bank governor has made clear time and time again that this government's spending profile is what is making it harder and harder to get inflation under control, and that's why you've seen 13 rate rises under Labor. They're not fixing the economy.

They're not stopping their runaway spending. So the only lever that the Reserve Bank governor has in her kit is ratcheting up rates to try to dampen demand. Thankfully, we didn't see another rate rise, but inflation remains too high.

We are top of the league table when it comes to international comparisons with countries like Australia. So, rightfully, young people in particular, who are trying to get into their own homes, are unable to save as much as they would have once, because more of their take-home pay is being spent on buying everyday goods. Electricity has gone up by in excess of 30 per cent.

I could go on, but we are here to talk about housing supply. One of the other suggestions that the Labor Party has taken on board is a suggestion that the coalition took to the last election, which was to invest in enabling infrastructure. We have $5 billion on the table particularly to help local councils, as well as other entities, to get the last-mile infrastructure needed to open up new blocks, whether that is your kerbing or access roads or power, water and electricity.

When we go out and talk to local councils and we say, 'Why haven't you got that development up and going?' what we hear is, 'Well, Shadow Minister McKenzie, we haven't been able to afford the sewerage costs,' or, 'We can't afford the additional power connections,' or, 'It's taking two years for state-owned power corporations to actually get the power on.' Government can actually do some of those suggestions.

So we are putting that amount of money on the table, and it's good to see the Labor government has taken up part of that. We know that there's in excess of $5 billion worth of projects around the country to get these blocks opened up. The government hasn't put $5 billion into it.

We would encourage them to match our commitment, because our assessment is that that will raise in excess of 400,000 new homes, particularly those house and land packages that are for young people in those lower first-entry markets. Unlocking the door of their new home and getting on with paying it off is one of the great joys of life over time. We need to get construction and productivity back on track, and that is something that the Senate is looking at.

I know Senator Bragg will be talking a lot about that in the National Press Club today. When Senator Hume introduced this bill back in November, the national average for auction clearance rates was around 65 per cent and the RBA's cash rate was 3.6 per cent. Now national clearance rates are at 55 per cent, and I note that in news in just now we are seeing the CBA sounding the alarm, having seen a 15 per cent drop in bank loan applications since the budget tax crackdown.

Whilst the Labor Party are talking a big game on increasing supply, they're doing nothing on demand. Their taxes are seeing the housing market crash and, as Senator Kovacic said earlier, that is leading to a significant drop in confidence across the country. We need to get confidence back in this country, as well as a belief that we can solve these complex problems together.

There are no simple solutions. They are complicated and require parties of government to be working in the national interest, not in their own political interest, to get the job done. So why would anyone want to downsize in this kind of market?

If you're an older Australian, you're sitting in the family home, it's just you and the missus rattling around in your four-bedroom home in a lovely leafy suburb, you're thinking you don't want to keep mowing this lawn and you'd rather be playing pickleball or golf and seeing the grandkids a bit more, why would you downsize in a market where you've just seen 10, 12 or 15 per cent drop off the price of the asset that you and your wife have literally spent the last 30 years paying off?

Nobody would be wanting to downsize in this market. That's why we need to make downsizing easier, not harder. So this is a very simple, practical reform increasing the supply of homes to younger Australians and giving retirement security for older Australians.

As we know and as other contributors have made clear, the dream of owning your own home has never been further out of reach than ever before in our country's history. The average median income multiple that is required is in excess of 13 times what it was 20 years ago to be able to purchase a home. That is simply locking people out, and they are losing hope.

We want to actually make sure that we're increasing supply of homes not just in the outer suburbs in those house-and-land package situations but also in some of the suburbs that are closer to capital cities and, importantly, in regional capitals. I think of my own home state, Bendigo, a regional capital in excess of 110,000 people now—we'd like more—and it is a wonderful place to live, to have a great globally focused career and to raise a family.

But, in making sure that housing remains affordable in places like Bendigo, we want to also see downsizing as an option. So the bill provides for flexibility to do three things: it lowers the minimum age of eligibility from 55 years to 50 years; it extends the period of time to make downsizer contributions after settlements from 90 days to a year; and the maximum amount of contribution has increased from $300,000 to $500,000, which is good news for those who are seeking to downsize.

Why did we lower the age on this particular bill? Because—I know, now that I am in my late 50s—retirement has snuck up on us. We've got to get all our ducks in order, shall we say.

So having those conversations with your partner, your children and your workplace, making those plans earlier rather than later, will actually mean a better outcome for your retirement and gives Australians a lot more flexibility. Why did we limit the contributions to $500,000? That's a simple recognition that the value of the family home, despite the recent downturn under Labor, has increased since the limit was established many, many years ago.

I think, for a couple, the ability to contribute up to $1 million provides a meaningful incentive to consider downsizing while allowing more of the proceeds of the family home to be directed towards retirement savings. As we know, the greatest asset that most Australians have when they retire is when they've managed after a lot of hard work and a lot of sacrifice to own their own home.

As more and more Australians have considerable superannuation savings in order to fund their retirement, making that transition between asset classes easier is much, much more important. I think this has been made clear in others' contributions. This bill doesn't force anyone to downsize.

It is just another opportunity for Australians to look at their assets, their retirement and their lifestyle choices and make decisions about their future rather than have a government dictate what they think Australians should be doing, what asset classes they think Australians should be investing in. As we have seen, Labor ruled out 50 times that they would be touching negative gearing, a key investment particularly for teachers, nurses and coppers.

That's who are using negative gearing in this country to actually help fund their retirement—working-class Australians. Instead of telling that group of Australians that they were coming after their retirement savings before the last election, so that Australians could make an informed decision about where to cast their vote, the Labor Party lied. The Prime Minister lied.

Every time he was asked, 'Are you going to be making changes to negative gearing?' he said, 'No, no, no.' Australians believed him, and that is why the rage in communities, in Labor Party suburbs, is so palpable. They feel the last budget has been foisted upon them. It's forcing them to make decisions about their own retirement, their home and their investment properties that they were assured prior to the last election wouldn't happen.

Labor talks a lot about intergenerational fairness and then does exactly the opposite.