Thursday, 3 April 2025

Bills

Help to Buy (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (14:02): I have listened very carefully to a number of the contributions that have been made in the course of this debate, and it has given rise to a number of concerns about the misapprehensions surrounding this particular bill that are founded not in substance but in a desire to create a political narrative that serves no purpose other than to divide and to in fact downplay the work that is going into providing solutions for people who want to be able to find a home.

One of the things that we all know is that people are lining up every single weekend here in Melbourne, across Victoria and around Australia to be able to find an opportunity to bid on a home and that as soon as a home is posted on a sales site or as soon as a ‘For sale’ sign goes up people are looking to get into the market and looking to get into a market where prices are at historic highs. This is due to a range of factors. It is due to supply, it is due to wages not keeping pace with inflation and it is due to a range of challenges around the reach of a market for people where stock is not meeting the demand, whether it is of families or people wanting to age in place or of singles and couples. The antidote to these problems and to these challenges is pretty multifaceted – there is not one single answer to the question of availability and affordability – but supply is one of those areas where we can alleviate some of the pressures being felt across the housing market and being felt in ever more acute terms by people who are looking to get into home ownership for the first time. It is also important to note that these challenges are not unique to Victoria; around Australia in fact people have been struggling to enter the property market because of, as much as anything else, an unequal distribution of wealth in an intergenerational sense, which means that unless you have the opportunity for access to a loan or finance facility from the bank of mum and dad, unless you receive a large inheritance or unless you are already in the property market it is becoming steadily more difficult for you to be able to get in. This is again an area that warrants careful consideration and innovative approaches to alleviating those challenges without creating further burden and financial impost for people as a result.

When I think about further burden and impost to people one of the things that comes to mind immediately is the proposal by the Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton to enable people to raid their super for the purpose of securing a deposit for home ownership. This is a manifestly – to quote the federal housing minister – rancid idea, because all it does is place upward pressure on property prices whilst also raiding the superannuation of people at an earlier stage of their paid working lives, which means they do not have the benefit of compounding amounts across a period of employment. Superannuation should to my mind always be characterised as retirement income. If we are not considering superannuation as retirement income, then we are missing the point for which it was set up in the first place. Superannuation is intended and has, as a result of the accord and as a result of those contributions frameworks, always been intended to provide a measure of certainty for people having completed many decades of paid work to address the symptoms or otherwise the causes of inequality.

Where access to superannuation is limited or denied we see disadvantage in old age – and statistically speaking, the face of poverty in Australia is an elderly woman. There are a number of reasons for that. Firstly, women are out of the paid workforce for considerable periods of time, and I say ‘the paid workforce’ because when women have children or caring responsibilities we are not paid for that work. Our work is not in and of itself given the economic value that it so appropriately deserves. We have seen a number of areas where this has been addressed, for example in equal pay test cases, particularly in the service sector, but we know that if women do not have access to superannuation, if we do not have access to penalty rates, if wages do not keep pace with inflation and if we have got insecure jobs in employment industries and sectors like retail and hospitality, that leads over the course of a lifetime to aggregate measures of poverty.

When we apply that to the setting currently being proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, to be able to raid one’s super, we can see that the cumulative impact of a lesser base because somebody has taken $50,000 out of their superannuation – if indeed they even have that in their balance – means that over the course of a lifetime that money is not being put to the use of creating further buffers for the financial vulnerabilities of older age. It is a pretty cheap solution; in fact it is not a solution at all. But what it does do is buck-pass the responsibility of government to alleviate some of those pressures around home ownership and availability that I talked to earlier.

In Victoria we worked very, very hard to address not just the symptom of people being locked out of the home ownership market but also the causes of that, through the housing statement, through the work to approve and to build more homes than any other jurisdiction over the course of the work of those investments, through planning changes, through the work in making sure that we are creating greater volume within the system, through allowing more easily for subdivisions and small second dwellings and through stamp duty exemptions for anybody purchasing off the plan an apartment, a unit or a townhouse. These things are working, but we also know that support to get into the market requires a measure of certainty in that initial purchase sign-up, and this is where the Victorian Homebuyer Fund was a significant pivot in addressing that disadvantage.

We have seen through the work that we did in Victoria more than 13,500 Victorians being able to get into the market and become home owners and another 2,300 being approved under the scheme, because what we did was help people to get into the market. When they had saved a 5 per cent deposit, government would then be in a position to top that up to the point where a purchase was able to be made – 5 per cent and then 3.5 per cent for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander purchasers. Again, the reason for that is really important: we need to address the causes of a lack of intergenerational wealth building and means.

We know that the homebuyer fund here in Victoria worked. We know that because the statistics show us that with more than 15,000 people being assisted to become home owners we are creating those circumstances in the market which are not placing upward pressure on house prices but which are assisting people in and of their own right to create the circumstances of servicing a mortgage because they have a mortgage in the first place. This is what has led to the Help to Buy scheme. This was a process of legislative reform that was the subject of some pretty cheap snookering attempts by the federal coalition, by the federal Greens. The Help to Buy scheme should have been able to commence earlier, but it was not able to commence earlier because the Liberals and the Greens in Canberra blocked it. That took a significant measure of certainty out of the legislative framework that was being developed by the Albanese government, and we have seen that at last that has been able to be cured.

We have now seen the opportunity as a result of this bill for a referral of certain powers to the Commonwealth under 51(xxxvii) of the Australian Constitution to mean that we can in fact refer that work to the Commonwealth – that work that we had started here in Victoria, that work which stacks up, that work which has helped more than 15,000 people to get into or to plan to get into home ownership in Victoria – to be able to magnify that up to 10,000 per annum for the next four years, 40,000 homes around Victoria. It is an opportunity for people, rather than having to search for the bank of mum and dad or, in so many cases, not finding any facility to help to service a loan or to save for a deposit, not to be locked out forever.

Here in Australia we do still have a very, very strong connection to home ownership. That is something which is starting to change. We have points of distinction elsewhere in the world where wealth aggregation is seen as something that can be vested in other asset classes. But here in Australia home ownership is seen as a measure of significant financial security. We are determined to make sure that in addressing home ownership it is not that lack of financial asset base that is keeping people out of the market, that people are in a position to be able to save for a deposit that is then topped up by the Commonwealth to ensure that that home can become theirs, that mortgage can become theirs to service.

We are really determined to continue our work to deliver on the volume and the stock of housing across the state that we need in order to accommodate growth. When we look to the changes that we have made thus far, we know that what we are doing is working. We also know, though, that we cannot do this alone, that it does take all levels of government to sign up to not just acknowledging the problem and describing the issues but being part of the solution. This is where housing targets are an important part of addressing these challenges. This is where we all need to lean into the reality of the markets that we are living in and seeing around us – namely, that people are lining up, tens of people, dozens of people, for a single rental property; that people are having to find a property that is 3 hours away from where they grew up because there is insufficient stock available or they are priced out of the market closer to where they grew up. This is about making sure that we are also taking pressure off the peri-urban areas of Melbourne that have for far too long carried an enormous load when it comes to expansion.

So when we look at the planning reforms and we look at the housing statement and the announcements that Minister for Planning Sonya Kilkenny has delivered and the way in which we are directing our efforts and our energy and our attention to significant change in the planning framework, the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the way in which we define affordable housing and Plan for Victoria, we can see that it is a process that is recognising the complexity of the issues that have gotten us here but also in a space to create and to see through on these initiatives that can address and alleviate those pressures.

It is also important that we can as a state continue to guide the way in which federal reform occurs. This is also where social housing – and I do want to touch on that in the time that I have available to me – has been a key driver of the work that is happening not just here in Victoria but in partnership with the Commonwealth. The Housing Australia Future Fund, for example, has been a really, really important part of delivering additional housing for the most vulnerable people in Victoria, and it is a shameful act that opposition leader Peter Dutton has said that, if elected, he will scrap the Housing Australia Future Fund. He will gut the opportunity for people to find and to secure social housing in the volume that we need to address that demand. So not only do we have a situation where the Commonwealth Liberals and Greens teamed up to block this Help to Buy scheme, but we also have a situation where the federal Leader of the Opposition has said that he will scrap the very fund that is providing social housing to those most in need.

We are determined to continue to do the work necessary, to make the changes constitutionally – 51(xxxvii), as I indicated earlier – and to make sure that we can accede to an intergovernmental agreement that gives effect to the work of the Commonwealth whilst also preserving our existing or future shared equity schemes from any inconsistency with the Commonwealth act. Inconsistency is something which I have talked about a lot in this house around the constitutional limitations of state-based law, and this is an important preservation mechanism for Victoria, so that we are not in effect ousted if the Commonwealth seeks to cover the field.

When we committed to the Victorian Homebuyer Fund it was to the tune of about $2.8 billion, and it is now a really good opportunity for the Commonwealth to pick up the baton and to work with us, as they have been working with us, to deliver on reforms that create better volume, more supply and better configurations of housing through financial products or processes or through a development and delivery model which accommodates not just outer urban, greenfields and regional development but also those infill mechanisms.

Transitioning to the Help to Buy scheme will be something that occurs from 30 June, and of course the State Revenue Office will continue to administer those existing homebuyer fund applications. This is work that we have worked hard to achieve and that we have stayed the course on. It is an enormous achievement. The Commonwealth is now in a position to deliver this work, and I commend the bill to the house.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:17): I also rise to make some remarks on the Help to Buy (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2025, and in doing so I acknowledge that I have had the chance to listen in to not all but many of the contributions that have been made here today. I acknowledge the contributions, particularly those of Ms Ermacora, Mr McIntosh, Mr Batchelor and ministers Stitt and Shing on this side of the chamber. It is indeed a very good thing that we are in the position of folding the Victorian Homebuyer Fund because we have seen a step-up in leadership from the Albanese federal Labor government. As Minister Shing was just saying, the housing problem is one that requires intervention at all levels, and this state Labor government is doing a great power of work in addressing that. I will come back to some other aspects of that in a moment, but it is important, as one of the most important levels of government that we have, that the federal government is also pulling its weight. After nine long years of inaction, chaos, disunity and a complete vacation of this space, it is a very good thing that we do now have the Commonwealth Help to Buy scheme, that this is now effectively replacing and usurping the Victorian scheme, as it should. I have said many times, indeed just yesterday in this chamber, the various ways in which for too long this Labor state government had to step in – as did Labor and Liberal governments from across the country – to fill the void from a lack of action on the part of the federal Liberal government. Let us hope we do not return to that.

I would not say that I appreciated it, but I note the contribution of Mr Davis somehow accused us of actually not supporting the building of housing, which is an extraordinary turn of events after several things which were discussed yesterday, including a motion for a select committee that is effectively seeking to build up, to fabricate a case for what the Liberals want to do, which is to revoke one of the key principles of the housing statement, those activity centres, which will actually drive housing, exactly as Minister Shing said, in the inner and middle metropolitan regions as well, so that we are not merely placing the majority of the brunt of our housing needs on the already straining outer suburbs. It is a very good policy, and it is very disappointing that the Liberals are doing whatever they can to undermine and attack it. Indeed if you were sincere and serious about an inquiry, you would probably want it to go for a bit longer than six weeks, but you would also want it to be a genuine inquiry.

If you were looking to make it a genuine inquiry, you would not be reading in a motion the very same day with the outcome that you have in mind. So it is clear that that select committee will be nothing more than a tool for the Liberal Party and perhaps the Greens party as well to build up a narrative, to build up and fabricate a case that will justify their decision to lock millennials and gen Z Victorians out of the housing market – certainly out of the housing market anywhere within 30 kilometres of the city centre – because that is the effect of what they are seeking to do. It is all about them and the properties they already own in those suburbs: ‘All for me, none for anyone else and to hell with the outcomes and consequences for young Victorians’.

When it comes to housing, this is a government that is consistent. It is consistent when it comes to activity centres. I am sure we will have much more to say when the Parliament resumes, and there will be much to be said by whichever members are appointed to that particular select committee. Whatever the outcome is – and we suspect we know what the fabricated outcome of that select committee will be, that miraculously it just somehow proves the case that Mr Davis was hoping to see via the motion that he has already read in as an outcome – on this side of the chamber this government is consistently working to support more Victorians into home ownership. That is with some of those big picture decisions, such as with the activity centres and such as with the broader elements of the housing statement. But it is also through functions like the Help to Buy scheme, which we have had operating successfully for some years now: a direct intervention that has provided that support to those young Victorians in particular – not just to young Victorians of course but especially to those young Victorians who are trying to get their first leg on the property ladder.

In many cases this scheme has been the difference between achieving that dream, achieving that goal, and not getting anywhere near close enough. It is that bridge of that opportunity gap, which is so, so important, and it is exactly what good Labor governments do. They provide that stepping stone for people who are struggling so that they can better themselves, so that they can rise up and be who they want to be and fulfil their dreams. That is what good Labor governments do, and that is why I am so pleased indeed as well that the federal Albanese Labor government has decided to steal a good idea from Victoria and implement the Commonwealth Help to Buy scheme.

As I said, this bill will replace the Victorian Homebuyer Fund. We expect around 10,000 Victorians to purchase a home through this new Commonwealth shared equity scheme over the next four years. Victorians participating in this program will benefit from lower ongoing repayments from the fact that they have a smaller home loan as the Commonwealth will share the capital cost of purchasing a home.

The Commonwealth enacted its Help to Buy Act 2024 in December last year, meaning it is now ready and waiting to be adopted by us here in Victoria, which makes today’s bill so timely. Referring power or adopting the Commonwealth Help to Buy Act are two different means to the same end with the same outcome, that the Commonwealth will be able to operate Help to Buy right here across Victoria. The key amendment in this bill fulfils the requisite limited reference of the legislative powers to enact the Help to Buy program in Victoria. Without this any future amendments would not apply in Victoria, which would obviously make the whole thing impractical and could potentially prevent Victorians from accessing benefits under the scheme, which would be a dire outcome. This bill will also make some minor amendments to the Duties Act 2000, the First Home Owner Grant and Home Buyer Schemes Act 2000 and the Land Tax Act 2005 to clarify that the Commonwealth’s Help to Buy scheme should be treated the same way that the Victorian Homebuyer Fund was under these legislations.

We know that the Victorian Homebuyer Fund has been nation-leading, and it has also been tremendously successful in reducing the capital outlay for many Victorians seeking to get onto the property ladder. The government has committed a total of $2.8 billion over the life of the Victorian Homebuyer Fund, and it has supported over 13,500 Victorians to be home owners already. The fund will close to new applicants on 30 June 2025, at which point the state will fully transition to the Commonwealth scheme. The State Revenue Office will continue to administer the existing Victorian Homebuyer Fund participants. Under the new Help to Buy program the Commonwealth will provide up to 40 per cent of the purchase price as an equity contribution. That is a higher amount even than under the current scheme, which is up to 25 per cent.

Another difference is that the new Commonwealth fund has a lower minimum deposit of 2 per cent compared to the 5 per cent in our fund. Additionally, off-the-plan and other types of new homes are eligible under the Help to Buy scheme, which were not under the previous one. That will also help to stimulate the supply of new housing, thus reinforcing the virtuous cycle that we are doing, again, between state and federal Labor governments in driving more housing and more home building in this state and in the country.

We expect, as I said, Help to Buy to support another 10,000 low- to middle-income Victorians to purchase a house over the next four years. This fund will also, just like the state fund has, reduce the overall mortgage for home owners, overcome the deposit hurdle and avoid the need for lenders mortgage insurance, or LMI. The Help to Buy participants will have lower ongoing repayments from a smaller home loan, as the Commonwealth will share the capital cost of purchasing a home. These financial risks and benefits, the capital gains and losses, will be proportionally shared between the home owner and the Commonwealth in accordance with their stake in the property. Crucially, participants in the Help to Buy scheme will also be able to skip that LMI, as the equity contribution in their deposit will decrease the loan-to-value ratio to 80 per cent or below.

There have been some comments in the media, and I am sure by many of those opposite as well, accusing this fund of being somewhat inflationary, but this ignores the actual evidence that we have seen in this space. We know that a recent in-depth and independent Grattan Institute analysis reiterated the view of this government by finding that the impact on prices of this capped scheme is likely to be very small. It will have close to zero impact on house prices in the context of Australia’s $10.3 trillion housing market, so it will have a very limited impact, if any observed detectable impact, in an inflationary sense. But for those 10,000 Victorians that will be able to purchase a home, who would not otherwise be able to do so, it is quite simply life changing.

We do need long-term housing policies that are consistent, and we do need that action from a state and federal level. Again, to reiterate the various debates yesterday, we know that when it comes to providing housing options in this state, the Labor government is committed to providing all Victorians who wish to do so – who have the means, the effort to put in their bit and the aspiration – with the ability to buy their home. The Help to Buy scheme is a really critical part of bridging the gap for those who are struggling despite their very best efforts. We also know the importance of providing those housing options. Whilst the Liberals and the Greens will team up with their Green triangle placards, which Mr Mulholland is now standing behind, to oppose development and oppose housing, those of us on this side will always continue to support it.

It is also why we embarked on the Big Housing Build, which when completed will deliver a 10 per cent uplift in the amount of social housing stock, delivering an additional 12,000 social houses. Since the announcement of the Big Housing Build in 2020, more than 10,000 homes have already been completed or are underway, and more than 5500 households have either moved or are getting ready to move into brand new homes. From the start of the build-up to the end of the last financial year, the net number of social houses in Victoria increased by more than 4000.

The $1 billion Regional Housing Fund is another significant part of that. Referring to another debate yesterday in relation to the Commonwealth Games report – and again I repeat it – the most central reason that the government chose to embark on the Commonwealth Games was to deliver benefits for regional Victoria. In the face of changing conditions and difficult cost escalations, it made the tough but sensible decision to pivot to a $2 billion regional package instead, of which $1 billion is dedicated to the Regional Housing Fund. There are also various other elements, such as the Regional Worker Accommodation Fund, which is providing housing options for employers, supporting public sector employers and some private sector employers as well who have struggled to get the people interested in working. Whether it is at a hospital in Horsham or at a meat supplier in the mid-north of the state, they are providing those jobs for communities. But too often they are struggling to get houses for those people who want to work with them.

They can get the people, but there is nowhere for them to live. In those regional areas the tyranny of distance – Acting President Broad, I do not need to tell you this – only extends further and further with those challenges, so it makes opportunities like the Regional Worker Accommodation Fund so important for providing those sectors with the ability to provide housing for their new employees as well. It will often be the difference between those people being able to have a job there – with those companies or hospitals, or whatever the case may be, being able to actually employ staff to fill those roles and, in the case of those private sector businesses, being actually able to invest in, continue to build and grow their business and to keep them in regional Victoria, which is so very important to keeping all of our state’s economy thriving. This is a government that has consistently delivered for all Victorians and has not been just for Melbourne. It is also one of the reasons, on that note, why this government has implemented multiple cuts to the regional payroll tax that employees who are regionally located have to pay, driving to a point where we are seeing some of the lowest unemployment rates in regional Victoria in this state’s modern history.

When it comes to housing, whether it is projects like that or whether it is other aspects of the Big Housing Build, the very many investments in social housing that Minister Shing regularly briefs this chamber on and of course fixing the issues in our planning system that are stopping young Victorians from getting into the housing market, this government is taking a comprehensive approach, pulling every lever that it can to provide more housing opportunities for more Victorians. The Help to Buy scheme has been a very important part of that. It has already delivered benefits for thousands of Victorians, and under the new Commonwealth scheme this new scheme will continue to provide opportunities for many thousands more.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:32): That was interesting. I like Mr Galea. He is a great guy but totally detached from reality – some would even say out of touch. It is amazing how he says the Labor government supports this and supports that, but he has failed to mention that there is a cost-of-living crisis they have created, there is a health and infrastructure crisis that they have created –

Members interjecting.

Renee HEATH: I do not know if you can call a point of order on yourself, but Mr McIntosh, you are not allowed to interject when you are not in your place. There is a confidence crisis in this state but also – one that I will talk about – a housing crisis.

Today we are being asked to surrender part of Victoria’s legislative authority to the Commonwealth under the guise of making housing more affordable. The Help to Buy (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2025 sounds noble, like a lot of Labor bills, but when you dig and when you scratch under the surface, you realise that this is a rushed bill that is full of holes and has the potential to make things a whole lot worse. I will mention that when the government does get involved in people’s lives we often do see things get a lot worse. This is full of holes. All of this chamber recognises that housing affordability is an issue. We are a state in crisis. We agree that something must be done, but this does not mean signing up to a scheme with unproven outcomes, serious risks and no external consultation. There has been no external consultation on this. This bill hands over power before the scheme itself is even finalised. Just think about that for a minute. That is legislative laziness, and I think it is what we have come to see a lot of from the Labor government.

Let us start at the very beginning, which is the process of this. The Victorian government has confirmed there was no consultation with industry stakeholders – none, zero consultation. We are being asked to finalise a referral of powers to Canberra without even knowing the final scheme’s parameters. The eligibility for this criteria is still in draft form, and we do not know when that is going to be confirmed. That is how Labor does policy.

A member interjected.

Renee HEATH: Correct. They do not look at the details, but that is not how good policy is made. If we are buying a house ourselves, we would not sign a contract without reading the fine print – well, some might. I do not know. You guys probably would, to be quite frank, but you should not. Why should we legislate on behalf of 6.7 million Victorians without reading the details? That does not seem like a good idea at all. The International Monetary Fund has already warned us that the Help to Buy scheme could increase housing prices. In fact I am going to quote them right now:

If demand increases without a corresponding increase in supply, it could lead to further affordability issues.

They are not my words; they are the words of the experts. More money chasing the same houses – that is not affordability. Newsflash: that is inflation. We have seen what happens when governments inflate housing markets. Look no further than the global financial crisis. In 2008 overexposure to housing led to economic collapse, and here we are thinking, ‘Let’s walk down that path again.’ Currently 60 per cent of big four bank loans are in residential housing. If housing prices continue to fall, including the housing and construction industries, or if interest rates rise, there is a significant risk, including to the government itself, if it co-owns these properties.

Fact: this state here has more debt than New South Wales, Tasmania and Queensland combined. Why on earth would you hand over any more power – especially when it comes to housing affordability, housing ownership and budget management – to people with such a horrific track record? It is like phoning your shopaholic friend who has got credit card debts through the roof and saying, ‘Hey, can you actually give me some financial advice here? Can you manage my property portfolio?’ They might be fantastic people – as you are, Mr Galea – but not great with financial management. When Victorian households are already leading the country in mortgage arrears, why are we encouraging more debt for low- to middle-income levels, especially as wages in Victoria for earners have gone backwards? Jobs are being slashed in this state – oh, no, I just saw Mr McIntosh move to his seat, which might mean that he wants to do some legal interjections, so buckle up, guys.

We need to focus on bringing industry back into Victoria. We need to focus on building confidence back in Victoria and we need to make sure that people have job security and good income levels. We need to restore confidence in this state. Not from this lot, who say one thing – they actually talk out of both sides of their mouth quite a bit. I was amazed yesterday – or was it Tuesday – when the Commonwealth Games report was tabled. It was scathing. It was an absolutely scathing report, and the propaganda unit over the here on the other side would come out and say, ‘No, we made the right decision to cancel the Commonwealth Games.’ It does not matter that it cost the Victorian taxpayers millions and millions and millions of dollars. We ended up funding a Commonwealth Games on the other side of the world. We ended up with this state becoming the laughing-stock of the nation, and they are like, ‘This was a great idea.’ That is who we are now wanting to give more powers to. I just do not think it is a good idea.

Even for those who qualify, the scheme is not a magic bullet. Only 10,000 Victorians will be assisted every year and for four years. The income thresholds are $90,000 for singles and $120,000 for couples. Even with the government’s contribution of up to 40 per cent, most first-time homebuyers still will not be able to afford a home near where they work, near where their kids go to school or near where their communities are. Let us take an example: a single person earning $90,000 could borrow around $450,000. Add a 40 per cent equity contribution and you are looking at a maximum new house value of around $750,000. That barely scratches the surface in Melbourne’s inner suburbs. I think you know that. Quickly go and have a look and see what you can get in Melbourne for $750,000.

Members interjecting.

Renee HEATH: It is good to see you guys getting a bit excited. Your speeches were quite – I do not want to say boring, but there was not a whole lot of energy in the room. This is not just about today’s price tag. Owning a home with the government brings with it a whole raft of issues. Buyers may need approval for home improvements. Did you know this? I do not know – you are generally not too excited by the details once you read below the really flashy name of the bill. Buyers may still need approval for home improvements, but guess who has to pay the whole cost of those home improvements? The buyer – so totally taking away choice again. They have to ask the government for approval, so the government holds the pen, yet they are the ones footing the bill. I just do not know if you think that is a good idea. What happens if there is a relationship breakdown or if somebody wants to exit the scheme? They might find they cannot afford to buy outside of the government scheme, or worse, if the market fails, they could be trapped in negative equity. Their financial flexibility will be limited, and when your financial choices are limited you might find that your future is uncertain – not something that is very good for Victorians.

But here lies the heart of the issue. This scheme stimulates demand, but it does nothing about fixing supply. I heard some of our team talking about this today. It is not fixing supply – and this is the issue. There is a supply issue –

Members interjecting.

Renee HEATH: Oh, gosh, they are all property experts over here now. I did not know your raft of skills. But let me be blunt: Victoria is in the middle of a housing crisis caused by not just affordability but uncontrolled population growth and a failure to build adequate infrastructure. Take our region of Eastern Victoria, one of the fastest growing areas in Pakenham and Officer, a fantastic place that was promised a hospital in 2018. It was going to be built by 2024. Guess what – it is 2025 and a shovel has not been laid in the ground. Are these the sorts of people you would trust? Absolutely not. They have got these big plans to expand, but they have got no money to build infrastructure. They have got a whole lot of great taglines, I will give them that – fantastic, inspirational even, if you could actually track them to do what they say, but you cannot.

Our population growth is 2.2 per cent, the highest in the developed world. Actually I have just written something wrong. I do not want to read something wrong, so I am going to skip over that.

Members interjecting.

Renee HEATH: Unlike you guys, I actually care that what I say is correct. We have got 2.2 per cent – the highest growth in the developed world – yet when you look at the rate we are building infrastructure this government are doing nothing but failing its people, the people that have put them there.

To put this into perspective, Victoria’s population is growing faster while its economic decline is accelerating along with crucial statewide infrastructure, particularly in regional Victoria, like my electorate. It is growing at a huge rate, yet you cannot get into a hospital, the ambulances are ramping. I have spoken about terrible stories in here where you have failed Victorians, where people cannot see a doctor and they cannot get into a hospital because things are so overrun, yet you are not looking at the issues. All you are doing is looking at the next election. And I say, until early May when we have got the federal election, you guys are just going to ramp up, just making sure that you are doing everything you can to help your buddies in Canberra but forgetting about the people of Victoria.

This is not planning, this is playing catch-up, and it is playing catch-up with people’s lives. Yet this government backs further population increases without asking the people of Victoria what it is that is broken, how it is affecting their life and what they actually should do.

This scheme also risks undermining state programs that are already in place. We have the first home owner grants, we have the Homes Victoria scheme and the Victorian Homebuyer Fund, all potentially at odds with the Commonwealth plan. And finally – you are probably thinking, ‘Good, finally’ – this scheme is not politically stable. The federal opposition has committed to repealing it if elected, because we actually look at the detail. And then there is the bureaucracy – new processes, new approvals, slower transactions. In a competitive housing market this amount of red tape could cost people their homes. Instead of rushing through flawed Commonwealth legislation, let us consider some alternatives perhaps: boosting housing supply, which we have spoken about –

Jacinta Ermacora interjected.

Renee HEATH: I like that you are saying ‘Tick’. It is sort of like what you think you are doing versus reality and there is a huge gap in between. We could coordinate with existing state programs and not override them. We could review population growth strategies and have proper planning. We have been saying on this side that this should not be a city-state.

Tom McIntosh: Where are the health workers going to come from?

Renee HEATH: That is a very good question. Rather than just being a city-state, we should be a state of cities. We need to look at where the population is growing. If you listened to these guys, honestly, it would be like there is not a worry in the world. You could reform and reduce property taxes to improve life for renters, something I know you would never do because you are addicted to new taxes – what is it, 60 new and increased taxes since coming into government. You could look at reducing that and reducing the taxation burden. I know my time is running out, but here is a suggestion: you could engage stakeholders – something you have not considered doing. Right now this bill is not a housing solution, it is a political distraction; we all see it. I think that Victoria deserves policies that actually serve its people and that actually work.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (14:46): While the English jurist Lord Coke may have established it as a legal principle in 1604, here in Australia we all know it was best said by the lovable character Darryl Kerrigan: it is not a house, it is a home – a man’s home is his castle. Having a home that is truly our own or, as Menzies put it, ‘one little piece of earth with a house and a garden which is ours; to which we can withdraw, in which we can be among our friends, into which no stranger may come against our will’, helps us to feel, in a very special way, as secure as a prince in his castle. Owning a home in Australia has always meant much more than just having a roof over your head, not just because that is where we are raised and where we raise our children, but because owning your own home is the cornerstone of independence, dignity and freedom. It is the great Aussie dream. That instinct to own and to build and to provide is what created our great middle class. A society that protects and promotes truly owning our own homes, our own little fortresses for the people that we love, is a society of truly free people.

This bill undermines all of that. In classic Labor style, they have created the problem, profited off it and blamed everybody else, and now they shamelessly claim to be a knight in shining armour. Labor caused this housing crisis. They restricted supply, they stalled approvals and, rather than encouraging the natural synchronisation of population and infrastructure growth, they invited half a million working-age immigrants to live here while housing supply sat at a tenth of that rate. Let us be clear: Labor did not just stumble into this crisis; they engineered it. Labor MPs are not simply bad managers, they are cogs in a machine designed to hoard power and wealth. Do not be fooled, Labor deliberately steered us here because they are socialists, and their vision for Australia is actually nothing short of national socialism. Today history is repeating itself, because socialism, always and everywhere, reveals its hatred for everything that the home represents: loyalty to family above the state, security and independence apart from the state – in fact anything that the state cannot control or exploit.

That is why under Labor we face not only a housing crisis but a home crisis. Federal and state Labor socialists are delighted to gobble up what housing remains and force people to co-own their homes with the government. That is not a hand up, it is a hand around your throat. Who would share a mortgage with someone always in debt who also has the power to rewrite the contract whenever they want? The power imbalance is obscene. Labor like to present themselves as our generous benefactors, but in reality they are tax collectors skimming off the top, the loan sharks of modern politics. There is nothing to stop this debt-addicted government from changing the co-ownership rules. For example, they could impose levies, restrict renovations, raise compliance costs or even decide that your political views make the home unsafe, and then they could just remove you just like they would a faulty appliance. But the Liberal Party believes in something better: a nation of owners, not tenants; of independent thinkers, not managed dependants; of families who stand tall because they stand on land that is their own.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (14:50): Thank you to all speakers today who have made a contribution on the Help to Buy (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2025. I will just make a few remarks, and then I understand there might be a few comments or questions in committee.

This is a relatively straightforward bill, as people have discussed in their contributions. It is all about adopting the Commonwealth’s Help to Buy Act 2024, which was passed late last year and will help deliver the Help to Buy scheme, a new shared equity scheme for housing which we want to ensure is available here in Victoria. The bill also provides an amendment to enable the Commonwealth Parliament to make future changes to Help to Buy so that Victorians can continue to enjoy the benefits of any future amendments to the scheme.

The Allan and Albanese governments are of course working hand in glove to help Victorian first home buyers into the housing market. I know a lot of speakers have been able to reflect on and point to a lot of good examples of people that otherwise would have been unable to or would have taken longer to enter into the housing market without schemes such as this. As we know, the Commonwealth government is preparing to establish Help to Buy, under which Housing Australia will make financial contributions to the purchases of residential properties in exchange for an equity share. The reason the bill is here today is that without it and its powers the Commonwealth would not have the constitutional power to operate Help to Buy in Victoria and we would not want Victorians to miss out on opportunities that would be available to other Australians.

This government has always led from the front in tackling housing affordability. We know full well that this is only one part of the solution in relation to helping more and more people become home owners. We led the nation in establishing our fund for that very reason in 2021, and in 2023 we announced a vision which is complementary to housing affordability, and that is supply. Our vision to deliver 800,000 homes over 10 years was in Victoria’s housing statement of 2023 and obviously often a topic of conversation in this chamber. Only last year, after listening to industry, we also introduced other measures that are all about ensuring more and more housing availability. We introduced the new temporary duty concession for off-the-plan sales to drive down the cost of purchase and, as I said, ensure that we were using additional levers to get Victorians into the housing market.

The Commonwealth scheme will support around 10,000 low- to middle-income Victorian households to fulfil their dream of becoming home owners over the next four years. The government will contribute up to 40 per cent of the purchase price of a new home in return for a proportionate interest in the property. Victorians participating in Help to Buy will benefit from a smaller deposit and lower mortgage repayments while also sidestepping the cost of lenders mortgage insurance, which is a huge impediment for a lot of people.

It was pleasing to see in the federal budget that the federal Treasurer announced the Commonwealth government will expand the income and prices caps to the Help to Buy scheme. We wanted to make sure that this would be accessible for as many Victorians as possible, and the changes are a really good step in that regard. They have announced that it will increase the income cap from $120,000 to $160,000 for joint applicants and single parents and increase the cap from $90,000 to $100,000 for individual applicants. As for the property price caps, the Commonwealth increased those from $850,000 to $950,000 in Melbourne and Geelong. As we know, that will ensure that there is more choice when it comes to finding a home.

The Help to Buy scheme is modelled on Victoria’s good efforts – our Victorian Homebuyer Fund. Victoria is of course leading the nation in this regard, and it was very flattering I think for the Commonwealth to pick up on the good work that has been done by my predecessor and a lot of work from stakeholders and the like in ensuring this system was so popular in Victoria. It was successful in reducing the capital outlay for Victorians looking to purchase. It has already supported over 13,500 to become home owners with another 2300 approved to purchase under the scheme. So we are doing our part to ensure first home buyers do not miss out on a great opportunity to receive a helping hand to ensure they can get into the market.

It is the plan for the Victorian Homebuyer Fund to stop taking new applications on 30 June, when the state will transition to Help to Buy. The State Revenue Office will continue to administer the Victorian Homebuyer Fund for its existing participants. It is worth noting that under the Help to Buy scheme the government will provide up to 40 per cent of the purchase price as an equity contribution, a higher proportion than under our current Victorian Homebuyer Fund, in which we provided up to 25 per cent of the purchase price or 35 per cent for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Victorians. Help to Buy also requires a lower minimum deposit of 2 per cent compared to ours, which was 5 per cent or 3.5 per cent for Indigenous applicants. Off-the-plan and other types of new homes are also eligible under the Help to Buy scheme, whereas they were not under our system. But as this is an area where we are encouraging more and more investment and construction, this is a good complementary policy that will help further continue the supply of new housing in our state.

Is the Commonwealth scheme an improvement on Victoria’s scheme? We would say it has built on our scheme and is an improvement. We are getting on and delivering on our commitments to making housing more accessible and affordable for Victorians, and this is our part in the future steps that we can take together with a Commonwealth government that is also serious about home affordability for Australians.

Touching on the reasoned amendment, which will obviously be voted on before committee – I understand it will be brought here; I think that is the understanding here – we do not believe that there is a reason to wait for a federal election outcome. There is absolutely no risk in adopting this bill ahead of the outcome of the federal election. In fact it is actually making sure that we have all of the available options still open for Victorians in relation to various schemes should that be an issue. There is nothing that puts all our eggs in one basket by adopting this legislation today. It is merely an adoption and enabling legislation to facilitate Victorians being able to access a system once it comes into place. There is no risk. The only risk is that hardworking Victorians could miss out on opportunities if the next Australian Parliament moves and we are not positioned to ensure that we can collectively adopt the Commonwealth act.

The Victorian Homebuyer Fund has been a tremendous success, and I think the numbers speak for themselves. It has helped so, so many people, and now it is time to pass the shared equity baton on to the Commonwealth. We are very proud to enable access to Help to Buy in Victoria through adopting the Commonwealth legislation. That is what we are hoping this bill will do by virtue of being passed by the Parliament today.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (15:06)

David LIMBRICK: I have just a few questions on this bill for the Treasurer. I promise I will not keep her as long as I did the other night. The first question is: section 40 of the Commonwealth Help to Buy Act 2024 says that the Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Act 1989 does not apply in relation to anything done under that act. So my first question is: do state equivalent land acquisition acts apply to land subject to shared equity with the federal government under the Help to Buy scheme?

Jaclyn SYMES: As you indicated in your contribution in relation to compulsory acquisition, I have obtained some advice in relation to that. As you have identified, the compulsory acquisition land act is dealt with in section 40 of the Commonwealth act, so the requirements under the Commonwealth act do apply in some cases where there is a Help to Buy arrangement in place. Section 42C of the Commonwealth act ensures that in the event that the state seeks to acquire land where there is a Commonwealth Help to Buy arrangement in place, the Commonwealth will get its money. The accepted approach is to negotiate a settlement for acquisition of Commonwealth property as there are questions as to whether the state can compulsorily acquire Commonwealth property in any case, as the Commonwealth has exclusive power on Commonwealth land pursuant to the Commonwealth constitution.

David LIMBRICK: If I can just tease that out a little bit, if I heard you correctly, Treasurer, you are saying that although the state government cannot compulsorily acquire this property, there is in effect a mechanism through which that would happen. Is that correct?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, correct. The accepted approach is a negotiated settlement for acquisition.

David LIMBRICK: In that case, if the government compulsorily acquire property now, they have to do it on just terms. How will that be arranged under this new arrangement? Because effectively there will be two payees for that compensation for the acquisition of property: there will be the up to 40 per cent equity of the Commonwealth and the rest of the equity by the property owner. How will that actually work for paying just terms of compensation?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I explained before, the accepted approach is negotiated settlement, but there are not three parties. There is only one payee, not two. The person whose home is being acquired is the payee. They then repay the Commonwealth.

David LIMBRICK: So the negotiation will be between the property owner and the Commonwealth, not the state government and the Commonwealth. Is that what you are saying?

Jaclyn SYMES: Just let me check with the lawyers over here.

Mr Limbrick, the way it would work is that the conversations would be between the state and the landowner, and then the landowner can repay the Commonwealth out of the funds that have paid for the compulsory acquisition. The only time that it may be appropriate for the state to engage the Commonwealth is if the Commonwealth were not willing to relinquish their right to the property by virtue of the compulsory acquisition and wished to raise a dispute in that regard. That would bring in a conversation with the Commonwealth, but ordinarily it is just the state and the owner, and then the Commonwealth are not relevant if they are happy just to receive their payout.

David LIMBRICK: So it is assuming that there is consent from the Commonwealth to relinquish their equity in the property, and – I concede that it would be unlikely, but the potential is there – if the Commonwealth refused to relinquish their part, then the state could not conduct a compulsory acquisition. Is that correct?

Jaclyn SYMES: At the outset my advice is that it would be a highly unusual situation, but the payee – or the home owner – only needs to repay the Commonwealth entitlement, so if there was a concern about the Commonwealth releasing their security interest, the state could negotiate with the Commonwealth to resolve that issue.

David LIMBRICK: I think that covers my questions on that part. On clause 12 the explanatory memorandum talks about how any duties on land subject to the shared equity scheme with the Commonwealth government are to be assessed:

… as if the person was the sole purchaser/owner of the home, and no account is to be taken of the beneficial ownership of the Commonwealth or Housing Australia …

So it is not quite clear to me, and maybe the Treasurer can clarify: does this mean that, because it is not taken into account, duties will not be payable on the Commonwealth equity in the home insofar as duties go, for example?

Jaclyn SYMES: As you have identified, we are talking about clause 12, which makes consequential amendments to the Duties Act 2000 – and the Land Tax Act 2005. But no, they do not prevent taxation on stamp duty or land tax, nor will Victorian participants lose any concessions or other entitlements. Victoria is also expressly prevented by the Commonwealth constitution from taxing any Commonwealth property in any case.

David LIMBRICK: That is at the crux of what I am asking about. So just for clarity, if I took up this scheme and the Commonwealth had 40 per cent equity and I had 60 per cent equity, the stamp duty would be payable on that 60 per cent equity but not on the Commonwealth component, because that would cause constitutional issues. Is that correct?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, that is not correct. The stamp duty is on 100 per cent. Sorry, I was pre-empting your next question.

David LIMBRICK: Let us see if you have pre-empted my next question. Doesn’t that mean that the state government is levying taxes on Commonwealth property if that is the case, if they are taxing 100 per cent of the property?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is the question that I said you would ask. No, the property liability sits 100 per cent with the property owner. It is a beneficial interest, as opposed to 40 per cent of the property interest that the Commonwealth would have. It does not fall foul of the constitution for that reason.

David LIMBRICK: So in effect what is happening then is the property owner is liable for taxes on the property for a proportion of the property that they do not hold equity in. Is that correct?

Jaclyn SYMES: The legal title to a property purchased under a Help to Buy arrangement is intended to be held wholly by the homebuyer. There is a beneficial interest secured in the form of a second mortgage, but the beneficial interest second mortgage is not capable of being taxed by the state pursuant to the Commonwealth constitution. The actual land value is where it is relevant, which sits purely with the home owner.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the Treasurer for clarifying that. It is much less attractive than I thought in that case. There are a number of taxes – land tax and duties – amended by this. What is the purpose then? Is that to clarify who is liable under these acts? If the titleholder is the property owner and then the federal government has an equity beneficial interest in it, why do we need exemptions under the Duties Act?

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to why we are amending the Duties Act, the amendments are to ensure that Victorian participants in the Help to Buy scheme are not financially disadvantaged because of their participation in Help to Buy through the loss of certain concessions or entitlements, such as being charged a duty as a result of paying money to the Commonwealth or Housing Australia under a Help to Buy arrangement. These amendments mirror provisions that were inserted into the Duties Act in relation to the Victorian Homebuyer Fund. We want to make sure that they are not precluded in any way from accessing exemptions where applicable.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the Treasurer for clarifying that. I think that already answers some of my other questions about liabilities for taxes, although there is one other thing I would like to clarify here. If there is land subject to a shared equity scheme with the Commonwealth and it turns out to be subject to windfall gains tax following a rezoning, that total liability on the property, including the federal equity, would fall upon the titleholder. Is that correct?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, we have got an initial answer for you, but I am just going to get them to do a little bit more work so that I can give you full information. I will come back and answer that before the end of the committee.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for that answer. Many of these taxes, such as land tax, rates et cetera, are based on valuations of the property. What happens if there is a dispute between the state government and the Commonwealth on the value of a property? How would that dispute be settled?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, we were just having a conversation over at the box in relation to how it is not immediately evident when there would be a Commonwealth valuation that would be at odds with a Victorian valuation, because the majority of Victorian property valuations are done by the valuer-general. If there was a dispute to that value, the practice guidelines in relation to this scheme have got some dispute settlement processes to follow. But in terms of a Commonwealth body going about their own valuation that would be at odds with the Victorian body, we cannot think of an example where that would apply.

David LIMBRICK: I can maybe provide an example. The Commonwealth will be holding this equity on the Commonwealth balance sheets, so there is an incentive for it not to drop, because they do not want a drop in their balance sheet. Therefore if, for example, the Victorian government downgraded property prices in Victoria, devalued a bunch of them, that would cause a devaluation on the Commonwealth balance sheet and the Commonwealth would be incentivised to dispute that valuation. You could imagine that if it was in the case of compulsory acquisition, the Commonwealth could effectively block that acquisition if they did not agree with the valuation. Is it a possibility that the Commonwealth could block compulsory acquisition in those sorts of cases?

Jaclyn SYMES: If there was a dispute in relation to the value of the land, there is a process for ascertaining the value of relevant property in the program directions, which is currently contained in the exposure draft.

I have just got an answer on the windfall gains tax. There is a residential land exemption in windfall gains tax for up to 2 hectares of land owned by a person, so we think it would be relatively infrequent.

David LIMBRICK: There is just one more thing I want to ask. One of the other taxes that is based on land is council rates. Is the government confident that that is constitutionally coherent? Is the government confident that that is constitutionally valid as well? What is the mechanism through which that is valid?

Jaclyn SYMES: I have got some constitutional experts over here. Let me check.

Mr Limbrick, the answer is a similar answer to some of the conversations we had in relation to compulsory acquisition and tax considering who owns the property. That is the person who has the tax liability or the levy liability, not the Commonwealth, so therefore it is not offending the constitution.

David LIMBRICK: It would appear that constitutional validity in all cases – and please correct me if I am wrong – is maintained through the fact that the home owner pays tax on the entire property, including the federal government’s beneficial equity component. Therefore, because that person is always liable, the state government is never directly taxing the Commonwealth, and therefore it is constitutionally valid. Is that the mechanism?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is correct.

Rachel PAYNE: Treasurer, the federal government recently announced the expansion of the income and price caps for Help to Buy. Prior to this announcement Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) modelling showed that one in three Victorians would no longer be eligible for assistance once the state scheme was replaced by Help to Buy. Thanks to these changes, the difference between the income and property caps of the two schemes has been more or less cut in half. Can you advise, following the expansion of Help to Buy and the end of the homebuyer fund, how many Victorians will now become ineligible for assistance?

Jaclyn SYMES: What we do know is that we think more Victorians will now be eligible. Obviously there was a PBO report that said that 88,000 less would be eligible for Help to Buy than the Victorian Homebuyer Fund in Southern Metro – that is the information I have got here – but we now know that that number will be much smaller. There are 5 million houses across Australia that will fall under the property price caps. Also, statewide, the difference we understand would be less than 668.

Rachel PAYNE: My next question is in relation to the housing crisis and essential workers like teachers, nurses and firefighters, who are unable to live in the communities that they are supposed to serve. With an average salary for a registered nurse in Victoria being between $75,000 and $85,000, the typical affordable unit price states that earnings would need to be more than $122,000 a year to afford a mortgage on a unit – that is without breaking it down by suburb. Just recognising this, in New South Wales they recently completed a pilot program of a shared equity scheme to help first home buyers who are employed as key workers to access those houses. While these workers may be eligible for assistance under Help to Buy, they are deserving of a targeted audience. Can the minister advise what the government is doing to specifically address housing incentives for essential workers, if any?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is a good point that you make, and there are a range of measures that we should always look at to ensure that our essential workers can live near where they work, particularly when it is for essential services like health and education. I know that New South Wales had a key worker component, but the advice I have is that it was not taken up and was not successful. I would like more info on that myself. I accept the advice, but I would like to understand a bit more why it was not. That will probably explain why it was not translated into a Commonwealth program. I think this is a conversation we should always continue to have.

The advice obviously is that, despite the examples you gave, indirectly the income thresholds would cover some essential workers, as the salaries will fit into the eligibility criteria. Obviously it is a policy position of our government that we have recognised housing affordability and housing shortage in relation to essential workers, and coming back to the regional development portfolio, for example, we have the Regional Worker Accommodation Fund, so building near agricultural properties for farm workers, building on several hospital sites for doctors and nurses and health. There are a lot of projects around regional Victoria in terms of ensuring that they can get workers into housing. It is always something that is considered and discussed when we are looking at housing investment and building houses. Whether it is social housing or affordable housing, it has always got a consideration of workers. I think there is a policy space for what you are advocating for. It should always be considered in a lot of our policies, and in this one there are a couple of reasons it has not been, but it is something that is at front of mind when we are talking about housing developments, about making sure there is provision for essential workers and about how you make that work. There are a couple of ideas out there, and we are always open to further ones.

Rachel PAYNE: This is just my final question. People earning an average income should be able to afford their own home without having to share their equity with the Victorian government or, further forward, with the federal government. Can the minister provide an assurance that shared equity schemes are a short-term tool that will be complemented by structural changes to the housing market, including but not limited to increasing supply?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is a really good point to make that you would like these to be short-lived. You want to ensure that it is as easy as possible for people to afford homes, and you have hit the nail on the head that supply is the biggest and most successful lever in relation to that. The scheme is a Commonwealth scheme, and we do know that the Commonwealth are also interested in building new houses – the current government anyway – so there are a range of programs. This is just one support system in relation to the housing market. It is one tool, one measure to address housing affordability. This does not take away any efforts in relation to supply, and you know all too well that our housing statement targets are 800,000, and there are also different other measures such as support for properties purchased off the plan and through Help to Buy. We will always continue to build more houses, because that is the most effective way of ensuring that there is more housing affordability.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 17 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (15:35): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (15:35): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.