Bill Debate: Help to Buy (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2025

BILL DEBATE

‘HELP TO BUY (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL 2025’.

Wednesday 5 March 2025.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:44):

I rise to speak on the Help to Buy (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2025.

If you look at the Bill on its own, just the wording of the Bill, it is a very simple Bill in that it is a referral Bill. It refers powers to the Commonwealth to enable the Help to Buy scheme, but as we know with this Labor Government, you need to look closely at what they are doing to understand the sneakiness in everything that they do. This Bill is no different, because when it comes to the policy there are issues with this Bill, and of course when it comes to this Government it is all about politics, which is where I will start.

This Bill enables the Commonwealth Help to Buy scheme, and it enables the referral of the Victorian powers to the Commonwealth so that it can happen. But what we do know is that other States have not bought in yet. Other States have not bought into the scheme. Queensland, the only state that has yet done so, did so under the former Labor Government, and of course they no longer exist. Only one State has bought in, and yet we are rushing this Bill through the Chamber at a time when the two major political parties Federally have different positions on this policy.

What I expect will happen is that this Bill will be debated in the Council in the middle of the Federal caretaker period. The current Federal Government and Parliament will be prorogued shortly, I expect, and this Parliament will be debating a Bill and enabling a policy that by the time it gets through this Parliament, if the Federal Labor Party is not successful at the election, may no longer move ahead. Our party, by the time it gets to moving through the Parliament, effectively may have to rescind what we are debating. All it would have taken from this Government was for them to say, ‘Let’s hold this Bill off for one or two sitting weeks, because we don’t know the outcome of the Federal Election, so that there is certainty around this program.’ That is why I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘, noting the contrasting position of the two major federal political parties on this policy, this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the outcome of the federal election is determined.’

I would appreciate it if that was circulated.

It seems only common sense for a State Parliament to know what the Federal Government is going to do with a policy before enabling it. We can be almost certain that this Parliament, especially in the upper house, will be debating a Bill when the Parliament is prorogued. The Federal Government will effectively no longer exist as anything other than a caretaker Government, and yet this Parliament will be pushing a policy forward at a time when we cannot be certain of the outcome of the Federal Election or assume that this policy will continue.

It is important to start there and to understand that this, like everything else this Government does, was never about substance; it was always about politics. There is no doubt in my mind that the reason why this Bill is being pushed here before the other States and before the outcome of the Federal Election is purely so this Premier and the Federal Labor Party can try and play politics with these issues in Victoria, because that is what they do. It is never about outcomes; it is always about the politics. That is what will happen with this Bill: this Government will play politics with this bill in the middle of a caretaker period. They have been caught, and they are upset they have been caught. I understand they are upset that their dastardly scheme has been caught.

But when it comes to the substance of the Bill it is important to put on the record some of the details of the scheme, both in comparison to the existing Victorian fund and what the Victorian Government is proposing to scrap on their fund and replace with this Federal scheme. For background, the current Victorian fund has a scheme size that provides 18,000 homes, over its almost four years of operation,
at an asset funding cost of about $700 million a year. That is being scrapped as we move to the Government scheme. What I think most people would not be aware of is under the new scheme Victorians are getting a heck of a lot less, and we have not read in the Minister’s second-reading speech any acknowledgement of the new scheme effectively being a cost-cutting exercise for Victorians, have we? We have not heard the Government crowing about the massive reduction in the fund by comparison to what is currently being provided to Victorians, but that is what is going to happen.

The Federal scheme will be providing 10,000 homes over four years. For those who are following, by comparison to the 18,000 under the existing scheme it is down to 10,000, and an annual funding change drops from $700 million to just under $350 million. So, it is a halving of the annual asset allocation to this scheme, and that does not take into account recent Parliamentary Budget Office findings that 668,000 Victorians, or 29 per cent of those currently on the Victorian Homebuyer Fund, would no longer qualify under the Federal scheme. So, we see a Federal scheme that is massively cut – I mean, it is halving what currently is in place – and then, on top of that halving, a third who are currently eligible would
no longer be eligible. If you are following, it is a scheme that is halved, and then a third are knocked out from the half that remain.

Only Labor at this State level could manage to cost-cut on a scheme that they are crowing about having created. I mean, the Government yesterday came into this chamber and crowed about the scheme and how they paved the way for Australia. Well, they have paved the way for Australia to create a scheme that halves what they are providing and cuts a third of eligible people out from what is available to them in the remainder. I mean, only Labor could possibly manage to help design a scheme – and presumably when the ministers are crowing about the Federal scheme, what they mean is they helped design the Federal scheme. That is the only thing we can possibly take from their crowing – that they helped design this scheme that cuts deeply into the program that they constantly crow about.

When it comes to the politics of this Bill, we know that the Labor Party is simply going to use this Bill to play games through the Federal Election – there is no doubt about that – and when it comes to the substance of the Bill there are serious concerns and questions that remain outstanding, which is why we have moved a Reasoned Amendment that the outcome of the Federal Election become clear before the Bill proceeds. But if the Amendment were to fail, we would not oppose the Bill, because of course Victorians should receive a share of what effectively we are all paying for. I mean, Australians will all be paying for this scheme. Therefore, as Victorian members of Parliament and part of the Victorian Coalition we of course would expect that our State receives a share of what we are effectively funding as taxpayers. So, when it comes to the final Bill, we will not be opposing it, but there are – I mentioned the design of the policy around the scheme – a number of other issues that are worth mentioning. It is worth noting that the scheme parameters are not even finalised. The Federal Government scheme is not yet finalised, so this Parliament is considering something when we do not know what the final scheme will look like.

There are some draft parameters around the scheme, and they include at a Victorian level a price cap on Victorian property at $850,000 or in areas other than capital city and regional centres $650,000, a single income threshold of $90,000 and a joint income threshold of $120,000. They are the draft, not final, parameters. When you look at the prices you can understand I think how those parameters have led the Parliamentary Budget Office to conclude that a vast proportion of people who would be eligible for the current Victorian fund will not be eligible for the Commonwealth scheme, because the parameters are tighter, whether it is the Federal Labor Government that has tightened the scheme or the Victorian Government, which I understand was consulted in the parameter design process and has helped them bring in the scheme. Those parameters are only in draft form. Not only do they squeeze eligibility, but they are only in draft form.

Effectively this Victorian Parliament is being asked to give up a power to run a scheme to a party when we do not know who will be in Government after the next Federal Election, on a scheme that is based on a framework which has not been finalised yet. I mean, that is pretty galling, isn’t it? You would think that any Victorian Parliament would say, ‘Well, why don’t we wait a couple of weeks until we know the outcome of the Federal Election? Why wouldn’t we wait until the Federal Government actually finalise the design of their own program?’ Well, the only possible answer is: because this Labor Government wants to play politics.

We hear the Government again pushing on the Bill, but I have not heard this Government push the other Labor State Governments. I have not heard a single one of the Ministers push the other State Labor Governments into this scheme. I offer the Minister – or any Minister – an opportunity to show us where he has pushed his other State Labor colleagues into this scheme. If this Government wants this scheme to work, why doesn’t Labor HQ ring up Labor HQ in the state next door and push them into it? Because it is all about politics. It is always about politics.

The other point that is worth noting with this Bill is that there has been no consultation. There has been no consultation with the industry who actually build homes, so I asked the Government how they consulted on this Bill, which is a fair and reasonable question. If you are going to bring about powers, it is the first question you ask, especially when it comes to delivering homes – you would think
the Labor Party would have consulted with someone who builds a home. And the answer I got from the Department – I kid you not – was ‘Yes, we’ve consulted other Departments.’ The Government has not worked out that there is a world outside big Government and the world outside big Government is the world that actually builds the houses. So, we have a Bill that seemingly enables people to get into homes, but no consultation by this Government has occurred outside of talking to itself.

I mean, you could turn that into an ABC comedy. The answer to the consultation question is: ‘We’ve talked to other Departments; we’ve talked to each other.’ That gives me very little hope, and it just goes to show why when the Minister talked in his second-reading speech – a very short second-reading speech, I might say – about the Government’s ‘vision’, I think as one Minister described it yesterday, to build 800,000 new homes at 80,000 homes a year, that vision has failed. The Minister in his second-reading speech talked about this being part of the Government’s strategy to deliver 800,000 homes, and we all know how quiet the
Government have been on their plan – or their vision now. I call it their promise, but the Minister yesterday said ‘vision’. A vision to build 800,000 homes – I mean, vision almost sounds like a mirage, doesn’t it? They are using language that paints the promise as being in the absolute distance, and I think every Victorian now knows that that 800,000 promise, Dan’s promise, has gone with Dan. We know it was Dan’s promise and Dan is gone, and so is that promise.

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: The Members on the other side of the Chamber ask, ‘Who’s Dan?’ It is not lost on us that we never hear that side of the Chamber talk about Dan, but I think in not too long you are going to be asking, ‘Who’s Jacinta?’

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, Member for Brighton. I remind the Member to use correct titles.

James NEWBURY: I digress, Deputy Speaker. But as I said, the Minister talked in the second-reading speech about this policy being a part of the Government’s plan to build 800,000 homes – 80,000 homes each year over the next 10 years – and I make the point that that figure, that promise, that commitment has not eventuated because what this Government does with all policy is it makes an announcement after talking to itself. Department talks to department. One Department creates an idea for a new tax, which is usually the genesis, I suspect, for most policies: ‘How do we create a new tax and dress it up as something else?’ And so that policy of 800,000 new homes, which was a series of new taxes, has not delivered new homes. In fact, only Labor could have announced a commitment to building new homes and had the number of homes go backwards. It is perhaps one of the most astonishing failures of a Victorian State Government in the history of this place that they announced a statewide plan to build 800,000 homes, as the Minister spoke to in the second-reading speech of this Bill, and yet the number of homes has gone backwards. This is partly because when the policies that the Government announced were designed, I suspect they talked to themselves. In fact, I am told the Department’s plan was to commit to 600,000 homes at 60,000 a year, and the former Premier said the number was not big enough as his final announcement – ‘Up it to 80,000’ – because he wanted a big announceable as his going-out message.

It is no wonder that when it comes to policy, when policies are designed in consultation with yourself rather than in consultation with industry when it comes to housing, your policies fail. And when the policies are built around taxes, is it any wonder that you do the opposite to incentivising industry? That is exactly what we are seeing with housing. We are seeing a nation-leading collapse in investment into our state. You can see it. You can feel it. You cannot talk to a single person in the sector when it comes to foreign investment, when it comes to confidence, when it comes to businesses on the ground and their future confidence and not hear back desperation.

At the core of that desperation, in part, is the tax regime of this state – what a disgrace. Of the 60 new or increased taxes and charges over the last 10 years, 30 have been in property. This Government has attacked the sector so hard the sector is now on its knees. The Government’s plan moving forward is to go harder, and we know that we will shortly hear about the Government’s plan for the developer contribution scheme, which builds into the 800,000 homes announcement, which will be a new tax. It will be a new tax, and as sure as God made green little apples that tax will cream money off the top from the local communities and go into Government coffers, because this Government are a bunch of financial vandals. So, its answer to everything is a new tax that goes straight into the coffers of the Government that is wasting taxpayer’s money because it has forgotten the golden rule, and the golden rule is that every dollar it spends was first earned through the blood, sweat and tears of some taxpayer. This Government have forgotten that principle, and you can see it every time they talk about Government spending. When you hear them talk about new taxes, you can hear they have forgotten the fundamental principle of how that tax came into the Government coffer. Someone else earned it first, and someone else earned it through their own blood, sweat and tears, usually through running a business, perhaps a family business, a small business, which are the backbone of this State.

When it comes to this policy it is concerning that when asked about consultation on how this policy will operate, the Government’s answer was, ‘We’ve talked to other Departments.’ Well, frankly, what would they know, because this policy is about getting people into homes, so why not talk to someone who builds a home? Why wouldn’t you? When I asked that question, I was told the Federal Government will not allow States to consult with anybody. The Federal Government will not allow any State Government to consult with anybody. Can you believe it? They are blocking the States, who they have asked for a referral of power, from talking to anybody. Well, why would that be? It is because the States might find out there are problems and flaws with the scheme or there are eligibility issues with the scheme. It is extraordinary to think that the Federal Government has designed a scheme and blocked the States from talking to anybody about it, so I do not blame the Department from only consulting with itself and holding all the team meetings I am sure it did to consult with other public servants. I am sure that was very fruitful work, and it is not their fault, because it turns out the Prime Minister is blocking the States from talking to anyone who builds a home about a program designed to bring people into homes.

Only this Labor Party could possibly bring about a scheme of that nature. That is why it is important to reiterate that the coalition has moved an Amendment on the outcome of the Federal Election, because there are divergent views at a Federal level on the future of this policy. Those divergent views are very, very clear. Although the Federal Labor Party wants to continue with a scheme – this scheme, a cut-down scheme, a scheme that will dramatically reduce the number of Victorians that are eligible – it is providing this scheme, and the Coalition has said otherwise at a Federal level. If we were midway through a term, if were in a
time when the Federal Government was underway with a mandate, you would say, ‘Okay, perhaps it’s fair and reasonable that the two parties have different views, but one of them has been elected and one of them is in Government.’ But we are at a time when the Federal Election is most likely days away from being called, potentially at the end of this week. So, this Parliament will be debating a bill –

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: I am hearing Labor members calling out. It is Labor MPs who have been putting that about. It is Federal Labor MPs who this week have been putting that about. I will not name them, but I am happy to if the Members want – federal Labor MPs who have been telling everybody, including me, when the Federal Election will be called. This Bill will be debated by this Parliament in the other place at a time when the Federal Parliament is prorogued and when the Government is in caretaker period, so we will not know the outcome of this Bill. When I spoke to the Government about that issue – I mean, it is a fair and reasonable question to ask, ‘Why are we passing it? Why are we seeking to pass something that by the time we have passed it, who knows what will happen?’ – I was told not to worry because the Bill can effectively be rescinded. There are powers within the Bill – and there are – that effectively enable the Bill to be rescinded and spent before it is proclaimed. So, hang on, this Parliament will be debating a Bill that is designed by operation to hit the floor before it is even proclaimed. Why not wait? Why not just wait a few weeks so that we know the outcome of the Federal Election. That seems very fair and reasonable, but no, there is no doubt that this Government wants to play politics with this policy and the broader housing policy.

It is clear now in my view that Victorians can see that the Government is playing politics with housing. There is no doubt that the Government are playing politics with housing, and you can see it very broadly in relation to their commitments, promises and visions for the number of homes built, which has actually gone backwards, and with their broader housing announcements which attack Melbourne suburbs. You can see it in certain Melbourne suburbs, not others. You can see that it is all about politics, and that is why the community has lost confidence in this Government. You can also see that in terms of industry, and it explains why we are seeing a collapse of confidence in the housing construction sector, because it has also lost confidence in this Government. The only way to fix these fundamental problems is to see a change of Government. The only way now is to see a change of Government, because you can see that on all major issues this Government has completely lost touch, misunderstands the issues and is trying to create fake announcements, which are usually designed around new taxes, and Victorians can see it.

On this Bill, we will not oppose the final Bill if the Amendment is not successful. I do hope my debate convinced the Government Members to support it. I can see that they are so quiet because they feel that it did. But on the final bill, we will not be opposing that.