MATTERS OF URGENCY
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (17:08): After 4½ long years, the stats are in on this government when it comes to housing, and what we see is a collapse by 30,000 of the dwellings completed in Australia over these last 4½ years. We've gone from an average of 200,000 houses a year to 170,000 houses a year. Despite the government's brag that they are spending billions and billions of dollars on housing, we are getting 30,000 fewer houses a year.
There are three tests for this budget. This budget was an audacious proposal to enforce a new tax code, where the government would collect $77 billion of new money. The three tests are: Does it ease rents?
Does it boost supply? Does it give you more first home borrowers? On the rents, the government said it would cost $2 more a week.
They've covered up the modelling for reasons known only to them but for political purposes, but we know already that we see projections of rent increases of more than 200 bucks a week in some Australian cities, so it's a failure on rent. Then we go to supply. The tax measures themselves reduce supply by 35,000.
The government say these are offset with infrastructure facilities, but why would the government want to reduce housing by one, let alone by 35,000? And then we have the other restraint on housing supply: abolishing the right of SMSFs to borrow to invest in new housing. By law, the owner of the fund can't live in it, so all that's doing is providing new housing for other Australians to live in.
No wonder we have a supply crisis. The government, by those two measures, cut supply by 75,000 houses over 10 years, just because they don't like the investors. We've never had a government that has hated investors so much that it would undermine the nation's housing supply in a housing crisis.
It is incredible to me that you would cut housing supply because you hate investors. You hate investors negatively gearing, and you hate people investing in housing through their self-managed super fund more than you want to solve the housing crisis. It is incredible.
It's a fail on supply. Then we have the mother of them all. How many loans are coming to owner-occupiers?
National Australia Bank says it's down by 15 per cent since the budget down, so we have higher rents, fewer homes and fewer owner-occupiers, fewer first home buyers. That is a dividend from these new taxes. The normal laws of economics were not suspended in May 2026 in Canberra.
I know it's a weird and wacky place, but the normal laws were not suspended, and those laws are, if you want less of something, tax it, and that's what has happened in these three or four months since the budget. The taxes have gone up. The houses go down.
It's a harder life for everyone, and we shouldn't be surprised. Why would we be surprised when we look at the government's record when it comes to housing supply? Every state and territory is failing to meet their housing target, and the government's flagship housing fund, the HAFF, with 10 billion bucks and almost three years—it's built 1,000 houses.
The Auditor-General tells us that they bought half of those houses. This is a fund that has bought more houses than it's built. It's been beset with governance problems.
I will now read into the record the Auditor-General. They said: '1,400 of the 40,000 houses have been built. Of these, 762 were new homes constructed, and 670 were purchased.' Minister Ayres is embarrassed by the record of his own government, which has been buying more houses than its built.
Go and read the Auditor-General's report— Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): It was all nice and quiet until about 30 seconds ago, and I would just ask for senators to be heard in silence, and then anyone can make a contribution after that. Senator BRAGG: It's very telling that the government is so embarrassed by its own fund.
The Auditor-General was very clear that half the houses were bought not built by the government, and the government, by interjecting in this debate, is showing how embarrassed it is about its own record of failure on housing—billions of dollars wasted on housing schemes that don't build. All they do is featherbed your own bureaucracy and all your mates down there at the unions.
This fund has been more focused on subsidising the returns of super funds than it has been on building houses for people who really need the government to be successful. There is a strong case for public housing and for social housing in this country, but there is not a strong case for subsidising the returns of vested interests, and this government has failed on housing.
It's failed to build the houses. It's failed to help first home buyers. All it's done is help out its favourite friends.
The PRESIDENT: The question is the urgency motion moved by Senator McGrath be agreed to.