Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Senate · Thursday 30 October 2025

Continued from Thursday 4 September 2025.

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

At a glance

The debate centred on whether investment mandate directions under the Housing Australia Act should be subject to parliamentary disallowance. Coalition senators argued the bill was necessary to restore democratic oversight and prevent executive overreach, citing concerns that recent expansions to the Home Guarantee Scheme lacked transparency and risked inflating housing prices. Labor senators opposed the bill, characterising it as an obstructionist tactic that would undermine investor confidence and destabilise government housing programs. The Greens supported the principle of accountability but criticised the government's broader housing record and lack of transparency regarding fund expenditures.

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

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Andrew Bragg (NSW) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Senator Bragg argued that the bill was essential to restore democratic accountability by allowing parliament to disallow ministerial directions that materially change housing programs. Bragg contended that the recent removal of income caps and place limits on the Home Guarantee Scheme was enacted without parliamentary scrutiny, leading to increased entry-level house prices. Bragg asserted that such significant policy changes should not be made via non-disallowable instruments, citing risks of executive overreach and lack of transparency. Bragg commended the bill to the Senate as a necessary check on unfettered ministerial power.

Government response

Dorinda Cox (WA) (Australian Labor Party) ALP

Senator Cox opposed the bill, arguing it would destabilise housing markets and hinder the government's $43 billion housing agenda. Cox claimed the legislation would endanger the Home Guarantee Scheme, which has assisted over 185,000 Australians, and threaten the Housing Australia Future Fund. Cox argued that making these directions disallowable would create uncertainty for investors and builders, potentially delaying construction and increasing costs for first-home buyers. Cox characterised the bill as a political obstruction rather than genuine oversight, asserting that Labor's policies were delivering certainty and supply.