Michael Sukkar MP

Interview with Michael Rowland – ABC News Breakfast

THE HON MICHAEL SUKKAR MP – SHADOW MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES, NDIS, HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS

TRANSCRIPT

INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL ROWLAND – ABC NEWS BREAKFAST

Wednesday, 2 August 2023

TOPICS: Housing Australia Future Fund, Robodebt

E&OE

Michael Rowland: Let’s get back to our top story now. And the Greens and the federal government are set to meet again this week as that housing Bill heads back to Parliament today. The Greens remain opposed to the legislation, so too does the Coalition on that front. Let’s bring in the Shadow Housing Minister Michael Sukkar at Parliament House in Canberra. Mr Sukkar, good morning to you.

Michael Sukkar: Morning, Michael. Good to be with you.

Michael Rowland: Great to have you on. Why does the Coalition oppose the building of 30,000 new social and affordable homes?

Michael Sukkar: Well, we don’t support the fund that underpins it, Michael. It’s a fund of $10 billion of borrowed money that will pay $400 million of interest on each year. It will then be given to the Future Fund and the Government will be hopeful that that fund can generate returns above the interest costs that can then potentially be put into housing. So there’s not $1 guaranteed for social and affordable housing. And in our view, if a government’s going to fund social and affordable housing, it should do so in a guaranteed way. This is a very convoluted money go round that the government has come up with just to ensure that it’s treated in a certain way for the budget. It doesn’t guarantee $1, as I said, for social and affordable housing. And I suspect that’s one of the big reasons why the Greens have opposed it also.

Michael Rowland: Okay. So how should the new homes be funded?

Michael Sukkar: Well, how they’ve traditionally been funded, Michael, the government out of its budget funds these programs. When I was housing minister, we funded tens of thousands of social and affordable houses through the National Housing Finance Investment Corporation, which the Coalition government created. We funded them directly. We partnered with community housing providers. We built up and helped build up even further the community housing provider sector, which gets bang for its buck. We did that directly. That’s the way you do it. Here, you’ve got not $1 guaranteed by the government because in essence, they’re requiring on a rate of return on the stock market that exceeds the interest costs. And for that reason, we don’t support or we never have. And the government to date has been unable to convince the Senate of the worthiness of this fund. The Greens did push them into putting some additional direct money through the States, but we have not seen any identified projects. We don’t know where those additional houses will be. And finally, Michael, I’d say, well, even if I’m wrong and even if the government is able to build 30,000 new homes over five years, that’s 6,000 homes a year. At the same time that the government’s seeking to bring in one and a half million new migrants. There’s absolutely no plan from this government on where those people will live.

Michael Rowland: Okay. But we can talk about funding approaches and policy approaches. But all that aside, doesn’t the government have a clear mandate for this, Michael Sukkar?

Michael Sukkar: We have a mandate to oppose it.

Michael Rowland: But you lost the election.

Michael Sukkar: We’ve opposed this fund and we…

Michael Rowland: Excuse interrupting, you’re not in government – I’ll ask the question again. Doesn’t the government have a clear mandate for this policy?

Michael Sukkar: No, they’ve got a mandate to take the policy to the parliament. They’ve got a mandate to take the policy to the Senate, but they have to secure a majority in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. You don’t need to be a political expert to understand, Michael, that governments don’t get every single policy up that they would like. That’s not been the tradition of Australian politics. So if you’re suggesting that the Senate should rubber stamp everything that a government takes forward, that’s an argument you should take up with the Senate. But that’s not how Australian politics has worked ever.

Michael Rowland: You don’t agree with the Coalition in the Lower House should support it on mandate basis?

Michael Sukkar: Absolutely not. We have a mandate to support policies that we think are in the best interests of our country. We have a duty to ensure that we don’t support things that we think are wholly inadequate, or as in this case, does not guarantee $1 for social and affordable housing. At the same time that the government is trying to bring in one and a half million new migrants with absolutely no idea or no plan on where they’re going to live. I mean, Michael, we’ve seen since the election, first home buyers are down, rents are up, new home dwelling approvals are down, new home building is down on every single measure. This government is hopelessly failing on housing policy. And that really should go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan.

Michael Rowland: Okay. Before you go, do you agree with your former leader, the prime minister, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, that he’s the victim of a political lynching, his words by the robodebt royal commission?

Michael Sukkar: Well, there’s no doubt that the government is trying to extract every bit of political advantage out of this.

Michael Rowland: I’ll ask the question again…

Michael Sukkar: Michael, you can ask the question as many times as you like. I will answer as I was answering it. So please let me continue my answer. There’s no doubt that the government’s trying to milk this for every bit of political advantage. I think it’s quite shameful what they’re doing now. No doubt the scheme that was put in place, which was closed down by the former government, I might add, once it became clear that it was not lawful, which was closed down many years ago, is something that many people have expressed regret for. The former prime minister himself has done so, so I’ll leave it to him to discuss his feelings and his approach when he was the minister. But the truth is, Michael, we’ve now got a situation where the government is not focused on the cost of living pressures facing Australians. They want to talk about this issue, let’s be frank, for political advantage only, not because they’re truly concerned about the the victims who they are speaking about in Parliament.

Michael Rowland: Okay, do endorse what what he said. Do you agree with him? Was it a simple question? Very strong words Mr. Morrison used on the floor of Parliament.

Michael Sukkar: And what I’ve said to Michael is you should ask the former prime minister if you want to know what his thoughts are. My thoughts are what I’ve just described to you, which is I think the government’s trying to extract political advantage out of it. That’s what I think they’re doing. I don’t think they’re doing it out of some sense of benevolence. I don’t think they’re doing it out of the goodness of their heart. I think they’re trying to milk every drop of political advantage, and I think that’s quite shameful.

Michael Rowland: Would you like Mr Morrison to retire from Parliament sooner rather than later?

Michael Sukkar: Well, no, that’s a decision for him and I would never comment on individuals. That’s ultimately a decision for his electors as well, in the seat in which he’s been elected into. So, again, I think these are ultimately political distractions from the government who has no agenda for the issues that Australians are facing today, the cost of living crisis they’re facing today, the housing crisis that we’re facing today. And they’re completely out of touch with the issues that your viewers will be grappling with this morning around their kitchen tables as they’re watching this program.

Michael Rowland: We talk quite a bit about cost of living, as we will on this morning’s program, Michael Sukkar. That said, really appreciate your time this morning. Thank you.

Michael Sukkar: Thank you, Michael.