Matter of Public Importance
Senate · Wednesday 9 September 2026
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
The debate centred on a motion by the Liberal Party criticising the government's housing record and claiming budget tax changes reduced supply. Government senators argued that the crisis was long-standing and that their policies, including infrastructure funding and tax reforms, were increasing approvals. Opposition and Greens senators contended that the government's approach had damaged investor confidence, reduced housing stock value, and failed to address renter affordability.
The motion was not put to a vote as the debate was interrupted.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
Opened the debate
Bragg argued that the government had failed to meet its target of 1.2 million new homes and that the Housing Australia Future Fund had delivered fewer than 1,000 units. Bragg claimed that budget tax increases and regulatory changes had resulted in 30,000 fewer houses annually and a 15 per cent decline in lending to owner-occupiers. Bragg asserted that these policies were designed to reduce supply and increase rents, thereby worsening the housing crisis.
Government response
Walker defended the government's $47 billion housing agenda, highlighting investments in enabling infrastructure and schemes like Help to Buy. Walker argued that the opposition had consistently voted against key housing measures and that their alternative policy of allowing superannuation withdrawals would deplete retirement savings. Walker maintained that the government's tax reforms were designed to incentivise new builds rather than restrict supply.
Opposition response
Sharma cited a $34.1 billion drop in housing stock value in the June quarter as evidence of market collapse caused by budget tax changes. Sharma argued that removing negative gearing on established dwellings and altering capital gains tax rules had destroyed investor confidence and choked off capital for new construction. Sharma claimed this would lead to fewer homes being built and negative ripple effects across the broader economy.
Pocock argued that both major parties had contributed to the housing crisis, particularly regarding renter affordability and public housing demolition. Pocock highlighted that rents had risen 23 per cent over five years while real wages fell, leaving many in dire stress. Pocock stated that the Housing Australia Future Fund was insufficient to meet demand and called for rent caps and increased public housing construction.
Dowling contextualised the crisis by noting house prices had risen 400 per cent since 1999, far outstripping wage growth. Dowling argued that the government's tax reforms preserved negative gearing for new builds and that dwelling approvals had actually increased by nine per cent. Dowling emphasised that infrastructure funding was unlocking thousands of homes, particularly in Tasmania, and that the focus should be on increasing supply.
Cadell cited Budget Paper No. 1 to claim the government explicitly expected 35,000 fewer homes due to tax changes. Cadell argued that developers were halting projects because increased costs and regulatory uncertainty made the risk unviable, particularly for apartments and townhouses. Cadell warned that reduced construction would exacerbate social problems and eventually drive prices up again due to scarcity.