Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024; Second Reading

Senate · Thursday 24 July 2025

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centred on the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024, which sought to prohibit the Housing Australia Future Fund from investing in assets financed by Cbus Super due to its links with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. Liberal senators argued the bill was necessary to prevent taxpayer funds from supporting entities associated with union corruption and inflated construction costs. Labor and Greens senators opposed the measure, arguing it would restrict capital for affordable housing and mischaracterised the role of superannuation funds as co-investors rather than recipients of government money. The debate highlighted broader disagreements over housing supply, the performance of the Housing Australia Future Fund, and the governance of industry super funds.

Outcome

The bill was recommitted for debate in the 48th Parliament; no final vote result was recorded in this transcript segment.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Andrew Bragg (NSW) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Bragg moved the second reading, arguing the bill was essential to protect the integrity of the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. Bragg claimed the fund had failed to deliver significant housing outcomes, citing only 300 acquisitions and 17 new builds. Bragg asserted that excluding Cbus Super was necessary to prevent taxpayer money from flowing to organisations linked to the CFMEU, which he alleged imposed a 30 per cent cost premium on apartment construction. Bragg also criticised the government for blocking transparency through public interest immunity claims and blacked-out documents.

Government response

Lisa Darmanin (VIC) (Australian Labor Party) ALP

Darmanin opposed the bill, stating it demonstrated a misunderstanding of how the Housing Australia Future Fund and superannuation systems operate. Darmanin clarified that Cbus Super acts as a co-investor providing debt financing, not a recipient of taxpayer funds, and that prohibiting such participation would reduce available capital for affordable housing. Darmanin highlighted that Cbus is governed by an independent board subject to APRA oversight and had not participated in current HAFF rounds. Darmanin argued the bill was a political attack on unions and super funds that would hinder efforts to address the housing shortage.

Opposition response

Dave Sharma (NSW) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Sharma supported the bill, arguing that the housing crisis was primarily a supply issue exacerbated by high construction costs linked to CFMEU activities. Sharma claimed the Housing Australia Future Fund had underperformed, with minimal new builds relative to its $10 billion allocation. Sharma asserted that Cbus Super’s financial ties to the CFMEU, including board representation and sponsorship payments, created a conflict of interest that risked the integrity of government housing investments. Sharma urged the government to sever these links to ensure taxpayer funds were not supporting entities associated with corruption.